^^^Ji:<<^c!&:r'< 


ms:<  <Mx.y^ 


.^e<^<C- 


E 

m^ 

§ 

^^^4 

IF" 

'«C^   "^<^<-    '      ^l^ZJt^ji 

W'        "^ 

m 

rl^t'^ <-''"'  '  ^^§K^ 

ip^"  ,g^ 

K 

MKgJ^Bgc^ignL^iy 

^ 

<^ 

^^c^    C^^^ 

C^       O       :,          «C«L^^C^ 

^^t^ 


c*'^'-  .;^i;V^ 


^^vc"f.'  <4ia^ 


-k:<: 


ics 


c%"-^^''-^p 

;, 

— rKci, .. 

j^^f^^/S 

^;M^ 

fc'^ 

^r^Si^-'-i 

^^<r 

J 

g^'^  '<€:xL  <_  ^Qtr^«: 


c^ei 


iiri:<^ 


^^^g^^^^-'*^^^ 


mmmmm 


W:^^^:^^ 


M**»' 


'A  M.k^'   ^. 


LIBRARY 

A'!' 

PRI]\€JETO]\ ,  ]«.  J. 

DOXATION   OF 

S  AMU  EI.    AGNKW, 

I'  K     V  II  1  1,  A  11  K  I.  H  H  1  A  .    PA. 


Letter 


/^v^^A^.c^'K/..^:  1  ^^f 


5e^=^a-.c 


'W?l^  665    .M346   1844 
i^;i}liiii  Major,  Henry. 

vindication  of  the 
episcopal  succession 


"  '  li 


Ml 


m^imM^&h 


^'mm 


i^«?^^^ir,^;y: 


am^-i'"' 


''"  iixiiOr^^ 


fvM 


i 

IQ 

IM 

M 

n 

■ 

J " 

1 

H 

1 

ffl| 

iPffl 

fnl 

^m 

ffip 

^^p 

ffl| 

y|^Ok>l  jt'l 

ffi 

JaiHC 

m^' 

SI 

M 

^ra 

i^MH 

Isidj 

iih 

WBff^ 

m 

Ur  »ii  iVi^yi  Mil  Bi  i  I  pw 

wi 

ru  ,frr    'yLmF4&i»  r 

1 1*1  flKSfl 

l/jVi/fl  li  J 

^M 

ffi 

wfi  y*  l/"^ 

s 

m 

^\i' 


i^^^ 


;»W^V       V       . 


VINDICATION 


OF  THE 


EPISCOPAL  SUCCESSION: 


BY  HENRY  MAJOR, 


Hector  of  St.  0tepl)ens'  (Jlinrcl], 


HARRISBURG. 


EDANT  EHGO  ORICIKHS  ECCLESIAUUM  SUARUM  :  EVOIVANT  oniirifEM  IPIS- 
COPORUM  SUORUM,  ITA  PER  SUCCESSIONES  AB  INITIO  DECURREXTEM,  tJT 
PRIMUS  ILLE  EPISCOPCS  ALIQ.UEM  EX  APOSTOLIS,  VEL  APOSTOLICIS  TIRIS,  ftUI 
TAMEW  CUM  APOSTOLIS  PERSEVER AVERIXT,  HABUERIT  AUCTOUKM  ET  ANTK- 
€E8SOBEM-,       HOC    ENIM    MOIMJ  ECCLEfl^    AP09T0I-ICJE      CENSUS    8D0S    DErKHUNT. 


Tertullian. 


HARRISBURG : 
IHEO:  f'ENN,  PRINTER. 


1844. 


r  R  E  F  A  C  E  . 


A  small  pamphlet  has  been  recently  published,  entitled  "  Method- 
ism Defended,  and  Prelatical  Succession  Refuted  ;  being  a  Reply  to 
'  Tracts  for  the  People,  No.  4,'  by  Rev.  A.  Atvvood."  This  produc- 
tion has  called  forth  the  remarks  which  follow  ;  and  as  Mr.  A.  has 
not  confined  himself  to  "  Prelatical  Succession,"  but  attacked  the 
Church  upon  other  points,  the  author  has  been  compelled  to  embody 
in  his  remarks  much  that  is  not  embraced  under  the  title  which  he 
has  adopted. 

While  he  has  maintained  the  principles  of  the  Church  without 
compromise,  he  has  endeavored  to  avoid  the  use  of  language  which 
could  prove  offensive  to  those  of  a  different  persuasion.  There  are 
many  epithets  in  Mr.  A.'s  production,  of  which  he  thinks  he  has  a 
right  to  complain,  but  he  has  passed  them  over  in  silence — his  wish 
being,  not  to  defend  himself,  but  the  truth. 

**  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and 
Ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these 
Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church :  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons.  Which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend 
estimation,  that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them, 
except  he  were  first  called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such 
qualities  as  are  requisite  for  the  same ;  and  also  by  public  Prayer, 
with  imposition  of  Hands,  were  approved  and  admitted  thereunto  by. 
lawful  Authority."  [Prayer  Book. 

"  O,  Holy  Jesus  !who  hast  purchased  to  thyself  an  universal  Church, 
and  hast  promised  to  be  with  the  Ministers  of  Apostolic  Succession 
to  the  end  of  the  world ;  be  graciously  pleased,"  &;c.  [Ib. 


i 


)^^  ■  •  ■ '    '■' 


CHAPTER  I. 

Remarks  upon  "  Tract  No,  4" — Letter  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  Mr. 
Jlsbury — Letters  of  Dr.  Coke  to  Bishops  White  and  Seabury, 
and  to  Wm.  Wilberforce,  Esq, 

The  pamphlet  which  I  am  about  to  review,  professes  to  be  a 
"  Reply  to  *  Tracts  for  the  People,  No.  4. '  "  The  true  title,  however, 
of  the  Tract,  is  this  :  "  Methodism,  as  held  by  Wesley."  The  for- 
mer, is  the  general  title  of  a  Series — the  latter,  of  No.  4.  Who 
the  author  is,  I  know  not,  nor  is  it  a  matter  of  any  consequence. 
He  has  exhibited  Wesley's  opinion  of  Methodism  by  copious  ex- 
tracts from  his  own  writings — it  is  the  extracts  that  renders  the 
Tract  valuable  and  suitable  for  the  times.  Wesley  was  a  Clergyman 
of  the  Church,  and  surely  the  Church  has  a  right  to  publish  his 
sentiments.  Mr.  A.  has  not  questioned  the  accuracy  of  the  quota- 
tions which  the  Tract  gives  from  Mr.  Wesley's  works.  He  knows 
they  are  correct.  He  charges  it,  however,  with  a  suppression 
of  the  truth,  because  it  did  not  furnish  the  document  which  relates 
to  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  as  Superintendents 
over  the  Methodists  in  this  country.  But  why  was  it  not  furnished? 
Because  the  writer  conceived  that  it  could  not  bear  the  interpreta- 
tion which  Mr.  A.  puts  upon  it.  If  it  means  what  Mr.  A.  supposes, 
to  have  furnished  it  would  have  been  no  credit  to  Mr.  Wesley,  as 
it  would  have  made  him  contradict  all  that  he  had  preached  and 
written  for  a  half  a  century,  (which  I  think  the  reader  will  presently 
see,)  i.  e.,  that  he  did  not  wish  his  followers  to  leave  the  Church. 
The  Tract  gives  us  this  extract  from  Wesley's  works : 

"  And  this  is  no  way  contrary  to  the  profession  which  I  have 
made  above  these  fifty  years.  I  never  had  any  design  of  separating 
from  the  Church.  I  have  no  such  design  now.  I  do  not  believe 
the  Methodists  in  general  design  it,  when  I  am  no  more  seen.  Never- 
theless, maiiy  of  them  Avill  separate  from  it.  These  will  be  so  bold 
and  injudicious  as  to  form  a  separate  party,  which,  consequently, 
will  dwindle  away  into  a  dry,  dull,  separate  party.  In  flat  opposition 
to  these,  I  declare  once  more,  that  I  live  and  die  a  member  of  the 
Church  of  England."— Fo/.  7, p.  326. 

Now,  from  this  and  many  similar  declarations  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
the  writer  infers  that  Mr.  W.  could  not  have  intended  to  establish, 
by  the  document  under  consideration,  a  separate  and  independent 
organization  in  this  country.  And  this,  he  thinks,  is  further  evident 
from  the  phraseology  of  the  document,  and  other  reasons  which  he 
mentions.  But  whether  the  writer  is  correct  or  not  in  this  inference, 
is  not  a  matter  of  much  importance,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that 
Wesley  was  infallible.  Wesley's  intending  that  the  Methodists  should 


sepnrate  from  the  Church,  did  not  make  it  right.  A  very  small  por- 
tion of  the  Tract,  however,  is  devoted  to  this  point,  and  if  the  author 
has  erred  with  regard  to  it,  it  was  caused  by  his  very  laudable  desire 
to  exhibit  Mr.  Wesley's  views  as  fixed  and  harmonious  throughoin 
his  life.  But  the  document  referred  to  is  not  the  only  one  which  the 
Tract  has  withheld.  It  might  have  furnished  others,  which  would 
have  either  supported  his  interpretation,  or  justly  exposed  Mr.  Wes- 
ley to  the  charge  of  the  grossest  inconsistency  and  fickleness.  And 
since  Mr.  A.  has  thought  proper  to  spread  that  document  before  the 
public,  it  seems  necessary,  in  order  that  a  correct  judgment  may  be 
formed  of  the  subject,  to  exhibit  the  others  likewise.  Wesley  ap- 
pointed Ashuvy joint  Superintendent  with  Coke;  and  a  short  time 
after  they  reached  this  country,  they  assumed  the  title  of  Bishops, 
which  called  forth  from  Wesley  the  following  letter  to  Asbury,  con- 
taining a  severe  rebuke,  (to  be  found  in  McCaine's  History  and 
Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy ;"  pp.  34,  35,  where  it  is  said 
to  be  extracted  from  Morse's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  2,  p.  285  :) 

"  London,  Sept.  20,  1788. 

"  There  is,  indeed,  a  wide  difference  between  the  relation  wherein 
you  stand  to  the  Americans,  and  the  relation  wherein  I  stand  to  all 
the  Methodists.  You  are  the  elder  brother  of  the  American  Metho- 
dists; I  am,  under  God,  the  father  of  the  whole  family.  Therefore 
I  naturally  care  for  you  all,  in  a  manner  no  other  person  can  do. 
Therefore,  I,  in  a  measure,  provide  for  you  all ;  for  the  supplies 
which  Dr.  Coke  provides  for  you,  he  could  not  provide  were  it  not 
for  me — were  it  not  that  I  not  only  permit  him  to  collect,  but  support 
him  in  so  doing. 

"  But  in  one  point,  my  dear  brother,  I  am  a  little  afraid  both  the 
Dr.  and  you  differ  from  me.  I  study  to  be  little,  you  study  to  be 
great ;  I  creep,  you  strut  along;  I  found  a  school,  you  a  college: 
nay,  and  call  it  after  your  own  names  !  Oh,  beware !  Do  not  seek 
to  be  something  !     Let  me  be  nothing,  and  Christ  be  all  in  all. 

"  One  instance  of  this,  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great  concern. 
How  can  you,  how  dare  you,  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  Bishop  ! 

*'  I  shudder,  I  start  at  the  very  thought !  Men  may  call  •  me  a 
knave,  or  2^  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scownf/re/,  and  I  am  content;  but  they 
shall  never,  by  my  consent,  call  me  a  Bishop  !  For  m-y  sake,  for 
God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this  !  Let  the  Pres- 
byterians do  what  they  please,  but  let  the  Methodists  know  their 
calling  better. 

'*  Thus,  my  dear  Franky,  I  have  told  you  all  that  is  in  my  heart; 
and  let  this,  when  I  am  no  more  seen,  bear  witness  how  sincerely 

"  I  am  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

"John  Wesley." 

This  letter  was  written  nearly  four  years  after  the  alleged  ordina- 
tion.  And  therefore,  if  Wesley  had  intended  to  make  Coke  and 
Asbury,  Bishops,  his  mind  must  have  undergone  another  change. 
If  they  were  Bishops,  they  had  a  right  to  the  title — and  deserved  no 
such  reproofs  for    assuming  it.     And    therefore  it   is  evident  that 


Wesley  did  not  believe  them  Bishops  at  the  date  of  this  letter^ 
whatever  he  had  believed  before.  But  if  Wesley's  abjections  were 
only  to  the  NAME,  if  they  have  so  much  '-respect  for  his  shades'' 
why  do  the  still  retain  it?  But  1  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this 
again. 

I  will  now  give  a  copy  of  a  letter  wfiich  Dr.  Coke  wrote  to  Mr. 
Wesley : 

"  Honored  and  Dear  Sir, 

"The  more  maturely  1  consider  the  subject,  the  more  expedient  i! 
appears  to  me,  that  the  power  of  ordaining  others,  shouli> 
BE  RECEIVED  BY  ME  FROM  YOU,  by  the  imposilion  of  your  hands; 
and  that  you  should  lay  hands  upon  brother  Whatcoat,  and  brother 
Vasey,  for  the  following  reasons  :  1.  It  seems  to  me  the  most  scrip- 
tural way, and  most  agreeable  to  the  practice  of  the  PrimitiveChurches. 
2.  I  MAY  want  all  the  influence  in  America,  which  you  can 
throw  into  my  scale.  Mr.  Brackenbury  informed  me  at  Leeds,  that 
he  saw  a  letter  in  London,  from  Mr.  Asbury,  in  which  he  observed, 
that  he  would  not  receive  any  person  deputed  by  you  with  any  part 
of  the  superintendency  of  the  work  invested  in  him  ;  or  words  which 
evidently  implied  so  much.  I  do  not  find  any,  the  least,  degree  of 
prejudice  in  my  mind  against  Mr.  Asbury,  on  the  contrary  a  veiy 
great  love  and  esteem  :  and  am  determined  not  to  stir  a  finger 
without  his  consent,  unless  mere  sheer  necessity  obliges  me,  but 
rather  to  lie  at  his  feet  in  all  things.  But  as  the  journey  is  long, 
und  you  cannot  spare  me  often,  and  it  is  well  to  provide  against  all 
EVENTS,  and  an  authority  formally  received  from  you,  will  (I  am 
conscious  of  it)  be  fully  admitted  by  the  people,  and  my  exercising 
the  office  of  Ordination  without  that  formal  authority  may  be  dis- 
puted, if  there  be  any  opposition  in  any  other  account:  I  could 
therefore  earnestly  wish  you  would  extend  that  power,  in  this 
instance,  which  I  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  but  God  hath  in- 
vested you  with  for  the  good  of  our  connexion.  I  think  you  have 
tried  me  too  often  to  doubt,  whether  I  will  in  any  degree  use  the 
power  you  are  pleased  to  invest  me  with,  further  than  I  believe 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  prosperity  of  the  work.  In  respect  to 
my  breihern  (Whatcoat  and  Vasey)  it  is  very  uncertain  indeed, 
whether  any  of  the  Clergy  mentioned  by  brother  Rankin,  will  stir  a 
step  with  me  in  the  work,  except  Mr.  Jarratt ;  and  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  even  he  will  choose  to  join  me  in  ordaining:  and  pro- 
priety and  universal  practice  make  it  expedient,  that  I  should  have 
two  Presbyters  with  me  in  this  work.  In  short  it  appears  to  me  that 
every  thing  should  be  prepared,  and  every  thing  proper  to  be  done, 
that  can  possibly  be  done  this  side  the  water.  You  can  do  all 
this  in  Mr.  C — n's  house,  in  your  chamber;  and  afterwards  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Fletcher's  advice,  [Mr.  Fletcher  advised  ordination  by  u 
Bishop]  give  us  letters  testimonial  of  the  difTerent  offices  with  which 
you  have  been  pleased  to  invest  us.  For  the  purpose  of  laying 
hands  on  brothers  Whatcoat  and  Vasey,  I  can  bring  Mr.  C.  down 


6 

with  me,  by  which  you  will  have  two  Presbyters  with  you.  In 
respect  to  brother  Rankin's  argument,  that  you  will  escape  a  great 
deal  of  ODIUM  by  onnitting  this,  it  is  nothing.  Eiiher  it  will  be  known, 
or  not  known  ;  if  not  known,  then  no  odtum  will  arise:  butiTknown, 
you  will  be  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  I  acted  under  your  direction, 
or  suffer  me  to  sink  under  the  weight  of  my  enemies,  with  perhaps 
your  brother  at  the  head  of  them.  I  shall  entreat  you  to  ponder 
these  things. 

Your  most  dutiful  T.  Coke.* 

It  was  probably  this  letter — that  persuaded  Wesley  to  "  lay  his 
hands"  on  Coke.  It  contains,  I  think,  several  expressions  indicating 
that  the  writer  was  not  fully  persuaded  of  the  lawfulness  of  what  he 
was  seeking. 

But  here  is  a  letter  which  throws  still  more  light  upon  this  strange 
affair — a  letter  from  Dr.  Coke  to  the  late  Bishop  White,  of  our 
Church.  (This  letter  is  taken  from  Bishop  White's  ]>:^emoirs  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  first  edition,  jo/?.  424,429:) 

"  Right  Rev.  Sir, 

"  Permit  me  to   intrude  a  little  on  your  time   upon  a  subject  of 
great  importance. 

"  You,  I  believe,  are  conscious  that  I  was  brought  up  in  the 
Church  of  England,  and  have  been  ordained  a  Presbyter  of  that 
Church.  For  many  years  I  was  prejudiced,  even  I  think  to  bigotry, 
in  favor  of  it:  but  through  a  variety  of  causes  or  incidents,  to 
mention  which  would  be  tedious  and  useless,  my  mind  was  exceed- 
ingly biassed  on  the  other  side  of  the  question.  In  consequence 
of  this,  I  am  not  sure  but  I  went  farther  in  the  separation  of  our 
Church  in  America,  than  Mr.  Wesley,  from  whom  I  had 
received  my  commission,  did  intend.  He  did  indeed  solemnly 
invest  me,  as  far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do,  with  Episcopal  autho- 
rity, but  did  not  intend,  I  think,  that  an  entire  separation  should 
take  place.  He,  being  pressed  by  our  friends  on  this  side  of  the 
water  for  Ministers  to  administer  the  Sacraments  to  them,  (there 
being  very  few  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  then  in  the  States,) 
went  further,  I  am  sure,  than  he  would  have  gone,  if  he  had  far- 
seen  some  events  whichfolloived.     And  this  J  am  certain  of — that 

HE  IS  NOW  SORKY  FOR  THE  SEPARATION. 

"  But  what  can  be  done  for  a  re-union,  which  I  much  wish  for ; 
and  to  accomplish  which  Mr.  Wesley,  I  have  no  doubt,  would  use 
his  influence  to  the  utmost  ?  The  affection  of  a  very  considerable 
number  of  the  preachers,  and  most  of  the  people,  is  very  strong 
towards  him,  notwithstanding  the  excessive  ill  usage  he  received 
from  a  few.     My  interest,  also,  is  not  small ;  and  both  his  and  mine 


*"  This  letter  is  taken  from  an  attested  copy  of  the  Doctor's 
letter,  in  Mr.  Charles  Wesley's  hand-writing,  and  is  to  be  found 
in  the  London  edition  of  Whitehead's  Life  of  Wesley. 


would  readily  and  to  the  utmost  be  used  to  accomplish  that  (to  us) 
very  desirable  object ;  if  a  readiness  were  shown  by  the  Bishops  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  re-unite. 

"It  is  even  to  your  Church  an  object  of  great  importance.  We 
have  now  about  60,000  adults  in  our  b'ociety  in  these  States,  and 
about  250  travelling  Ministers  and  Preachers  ;  besides  a  great  number 
of  Local  Preachers,  very  far  exceeding  the  number  of  travelling 
Preachers  ;  and  some  of  these  Local  Preachers  are  men  of  very  con- 
siderable abilities.  But  if  we  number  the  Methodists  as  most  people 
number  the  members  of  their  Church,  viz  :  by  the  families  which 
constantly  attend  the  Divine  ordinances  in  their  places  of  worship, 
they  will  make  a  larger  body  than  you  probably  conceive.  The 
Society,  I  believe,  may  be  safely  multiplied  by  five  on  an  average 
to  give  us  our  stated  Congregations ;  which  will  then  amount  to 
300,000.  And  if  the  calculation  which,  I  think,  some  eminent  wri- 
ters have  made,  be  just,  that  three-fifths  of  mankind  are  un-adult  (if 
I  may  use  the  expression)  at  any  given  period,  it  will  follow  that  all 
the  families,  the  adults  of  which  form  our  congregations  in  these 
States,  amount  to  750,000.  About  one-fifth  of  these  are  blacks. 
The  work  now  extends  in  length  from  Boston  to  the  south  of  Georgia ; 
and  in  breadth  from  the  Atlantic  to  Lake  Champlain, Vermont,  Aibanv, 
Redstone,  Holstein,  Kentucky,  Cumberland,  &c. 

"  But  there  are  many  hindrances  in  the  way.  Can  they  be 
removed  ? 

"  1.  Our  ordained  Ministers  will  not,  ought  not,  to  give  up  their 
right  of  administering  the  Sacraments.  I  don't  think  that  the  gene- 
rality of  them,  perhaps  none  of  them,  wonld  refuse  to  submit  to  a 
re-inordination,  if  other  hindrances  were  removed  out  of  the  way. 
I  must  here  observe  that  between  60  and  70  only  out  of  the  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  have  been  ordained  Presbyters,  and  about  60  Deacons, 
(only).     The  Presbyters  are  the  choicest  of  the  whole. 

*'  2.  The  other  Preachers  would  hardly  submit  to  a  re-union,  if  the 
possibility  of  their  rising  up  to  ordination  depended  on  the  present 
Bishops  in  America.  Because,  though  they  are  a//,  I  think  I  may  say, 
zealous,  pious  and  very  useful  men,  yet  they  are  not  acquainted  with 
the  learned  languages.  Besidi^s,  they  would  argue, — If  the  present 
Bishops  would  waive  the  article  of  the  learned  languages,  yet  their 
successors  might  not. 

"  My  desire  of  a  re-union  is  so  sincere  and  earnest  that  these  dif- 
ficulties almost  make  me  tremble  ;  and  yet  something  must  be  done 
before  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  otherwise  I  shall  despair  of  success  : 
for  though  my  influence  among  the  Methodists  in  these  States  as  well 
as  in  Europe  is,  I  doubt  not,  increasing,  yet  Mr.  Asbury,  whose 
influence  is  very  capital,  will  not  easily  comply  :  nay,  I  know  he  will 
be  exceedingly  averse  to  it. 

"  In  Europe,  where  some  steps  had  been  taken,  tending  to  a  sepa- 
ration, all  is  at  an  end.  Mr,  PVesley  is  a  determined  enemy  of  it, 
and  I  have  lately  borne  an  open  and  successful  testimony  against   it. 


''  Shall  I  be  favored  with  a  private  interview  with  you  in  Philadel- 
phia ?  I  shall  be  there,  God  willing,  on  Tuesday,  the  17th  of  May. 
If  this  be  agreeable,  I'll  beg  of  you  just  to  signify  it  in  a  note  directed 
to  me,  at  Mr.  Jacob  Baker's,  merchant,  Market  street,  Philadelphia  : 
or,  if  you  please,  by  a  few  lines  sent  to  me  by  the  return  of  the  post 
a'  Philip  Rogers',  Esq.,  in  Baltimore,  from  yourself  or  Dr.  Magaw, 
•dud  1  will  wait  upon  you  with  my  friend  Dr.  Magaw.  We  can  then 
enlarge  on  these  subjects. 

'•I  am  conscious  of  it,  that  secresy  is  of  great  importance  in  the 
present  state  of  the  business,  till  the  minds  of  you,  your  brother 
Bishops,  and  Mr.  Wesley,  be  circumstantially  known.  I  must  there- 
fore beg  that  these  things  be  confined  to  yourself  and  Dr.  Magaw, 
till  I  have  the  honor  of  seeing  you. 

"  Thus,  you  see,  I  have  made  a  bold  venture  on  your  honor  and 
t-andor,  and  have  opened  my  whole  heart  to  you  on  the  subject  as 
far  as  the  extent  of  a  small  letter  will  allow  me.  If  you  put  equal 
confidence  in  me,  you  will  find  me  candid  and  faithful. 

"  I  have,  notwithstanding,  been  guilty  of  inadvertencies.  Very 
lately  I  found  myself  obliged  (for  the  pacifying  of  my  conscience,) 
to  write  a  penitential  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jarratt,  which  gave  him 
great  satisfaction  :  and  for  the  same  reason  I  must  write  another  to 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Pettigrew.  AVhen  I  was  last  in  America,  I  prepared 
and  corrected  a  great  variety  of  things  for  our  magazines,  indeed 
almost  everything  that  was  printed,  except  some  loose  hints  which 
I  had  taken  of  one  of  my  journeys,  and  which  I  left  in  my  hurry 
with  Mr.  Asbury,  without  any  correction,  entreating  that  no  part  of 
them  might  be  printed  which  would  be  improper  or  offensive.  But 
through  great  inadvertency  (I  suppose)  he  suffered  some  reflections 
on  the  characters  of  the  two  above-mentioned  gendemen  to  be  inserted 
in  the  magazine,  for  which  I  am  very  sorry  :  and  probably  shall 
not  rest  till  I  have  made  my  acknowledgment  more  public  ;  though 
Mr.  Jarratt  does  not  desire  it. 

"I  am  not  sure  whether  I  have  not  also  ofiended  you,  sir,  by 
accepting  one  of  the  offers  made  me  by  you  and  Dr.  Magaw  of  the 
use  of  your  churches  about  six  years  ago  on  my  first  visit  to  Phila- 
delphia, without  informing  you  of  our  plan  of  separation  from  tlie 
Church  of  England.  If  I  did  offend,  (as  I  doubt  I  did,  especially 
from  what  you  said  on  the  subject  to  Mr.  Richard  Dallam,  of  Abing- 
ton,)  I  sincerely  beg  yours  and  Dr.  Magaw's  pardon.  I  '11  endeavor 
to  amend.     But  alas  !  I  am  a  frail,  weak  creature. 

"  I  will  intruJe  no  longer  at  present.  One  thing  only  I  will  claim 
from  your  candor — that  if  you  have  no  thoughts  of  improving  this 
proposal,  you  will  burn  this  letter,  and  take  no  more  notice  of  it,  (for 
it  would  be  a  pity  to  have  us  entirely  alienated  from  each  other,  if 
we  cannotunite  in  the  manner  my  ardent  wishes  desire.)  But  if  you 
will  further  negotiate  the  business,  I  will  explain  my  mind  still  more 
fully  to  you  on  the  probabilities  of  success. 


^'In  themeantimepermitme,  with  great  respect,  to  subscribe  myself, 
"•Right  Rev.  sir, 

"  Your  very  humble  servant  in  Christ, 

"  Thomas  Coke. 
''Richmond^  April M,  1791. 

"The  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God,  Bishop  White. 
''  You  must  excuse  interlineations,  &c.,  as  I  am  just  going  into  the 
coimtry,  and  have  no  time  to  transcribe." 

This  letter  was  written  nearly  seven  years  after  Wesley  appointed 
Coke,  Superintendent.  And  it  proves  these  points :  First,  That 
Wesley  was  urged  to  take  that  step  by  persons  in  this  country,  and 
the  preceding  letter  shows  that  Coke  was  one  of  these  persons. 
•Second^  That  Coke  went  farther  than  Wesley  intended,  and  that 
JVesley  did  not  "  intend  that  an  entire  separation  should  take  placed 
Thirds  That  botli  Coke  and  Wesley  regretted  the  separation. 
Fourth^  That  Coke  was  convinced  that  he  was  no  Bishop.  No 
man  would  seek  re-ordination,  unless  conscious  of  the  invalidity  of 
what  he  has  received.  But  I  shall  recur  to  this  again.  My  next 
document  is  another  letter  from  Dr.  Coke  to  Bishop  Seabury,  of  our 
Church,  upon  the  same  subject.  (The  autograph  of  this  letter  is  in  the 
possession  of  Bishop  Seabury's  son.  Dr.  Seabury,  of  the  city  of 
New  York  :) 
'^  The  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God,  Bishop  Seabury  : 

"Right  Rev.  Sir,— From  your  well  known  character  I  am  going 
to  open  my  mind  to  you  on  a  subject  of  very  great  moment. 

"  Being  educated  a  member  of  the  CInirch  of  England  from  my 
earliest   infancy,  being  ordained   of  that  Church,  and  having  taken 
two  degrees  in  arts,  and  two  degrees  in  civil  law,  in  the  University 
of  Oxford,  which  is  entirely  under   the  patronage  of  the  Church  of 
England,  I  was  almost  a  bigot  in  its    favor  when  I  first  joined    that 
great  and  good  man,  Mr.  John  Wesley,  which  is  fourteen  years  ago. 
For  five  or  six  years    after   my  union  with  Mr.  Wesley,  I  remained 
fixed  in  my  attachments  to  the  ('hurch  of  England  :  but  afterwards, 
for  many  reasons  which  it  would  be    tedious  and  useless  to  mention, 
I  changed  my  sentiments,  and  promoted  a  separation  from  it  as  far  as 
my   influence  reached.     Within  these  two  years  J  am  come  back- 
again:  my  love  for  the  Church  of  England  has  returned.     I  think 
I    am    attached  to  it  on  a  ground   much  more   rational,  and  conse- 
quently much  less  likely  to  be  shaken  than  formerly.     I  have  many 
a  time  run    into    error  ;  but  to  be   ashamed  of  confessing  my  error 
when  convinced  of  it,  has   never  been  one  of  my  defects.     There- 
fore, when  I  was  fully  convinced  of  my  error  in  the  steps  I  took  to 
bring  about  a  separation  from  the  Church  of  England  in  Europe,  1 
delivered  before  a  congregation  of  about  3000  people,  in  our  largest 
chapel  in  Dublin,  on  a  Sunday  evening,  after   preaching,  an  exhorta- 
tion, which,  in  fact,  amounted  to  a  recantation  of  my  error.     Some 
time  afterward,  I  repeated  tlie  same  in  our  largest  chapels  in  London, 
and  in  several  other  parts  of  England,  and  Ireland  :  and  I  have  reason 


10 

to  believe  that  my  proceedings  in  this  respect  have  given  a  death- 
Wow  to  all  the  hopes  of  separation  which  may  exist  in  the  minds  of 
any  in  those  kingdoms. 

"  On  the  same  principles  I  most  cordially  wish  for  a  reunion  of 
the  Protectant  Episcopal  and  the  Methodist  Churches,  in  these 
States.  The  object  is  of  vast  magnitude.  Our  work  now  reaches 
to  Boston,  northward  ;  to  Wilkes  county,  in  Georgia,  southward  ; 
and  to  Albany,  Vermont,  Lake  Champlain,  Redstone,  and  Kentucky, 
westward  :  a  length  of  about  1300  or  1400  miles,  and  a  breadth  of 
between  500  and  1000.  Our  Society  in  the  States  amounts  to  up- 
wards of  60,000.  These,  I  am  persuaded,  may,  with  safety,  be 
multiplied  by  five  to  give  us  our  regular  Sunday's  congregations, 
which  will  make  300,000.  If  the  calculations  of  some  great  writers 
be  just,  three-fifths  of  any  given  country  consists  of  im-adults  ;  so 
that  the  families,  the  adults  of  which  regularly  attend  Divine  Service 
among  us,  amount,  according  to  this  mode  of  calculation,  to  750,000; 
about  a  fifth  part  of  these  are  blacks.  How  great,  then,  would  be 
the  strength  of  our  Church  (will  you  give  me  leave  to  call  it  so  ?  I 
mean  the  Protestant  Episcopal)  if  the  two  sticks  were  made  one  ? 

"But  hov/  can  this  be  done?  The  magnitude  of  the  object 
would  justify  considerable  sacrifices.  A  solemn  engagement  to  use 
your  prayer-book  in  all  our  places  of  worship  on  the  Lord's  Day 
would,  of  course,  be  a  sine  qua  non,  a  concession  we  should  be 
obliged  to  make  on  our  part,  (if  it  may  be  called  a  concession  ;)  and 
there  would  be,  I  doubt  not,  other  concessions  to  be  made  by  us. 
But  what  concessions  would  it  be  necessary  for  you  to  make  ?  For 
the  opening  of  this  subject  with  all  possible  candor,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  take  a  view  of  the  present  state  of  the  Ministry  in  the 
Methodist  Church,  in  these  States. 

"  We  have  about  250  travelling  Preachers,  and  a  vastly  greater 
number  of  Local  Preachers,  I  mean  Preachers  who  live  on  their  plan- 
tations, or  are  occupied  in  the  exercise  of  trades  or  professions,  and 
confined  to  a  small  sphere  of  action,  in  respect  to  their  ministerial 
labors.  About  seventy  of  our  travelling  Preachers  are  Elders  (as 
we  call  them)  or  Presbvters.  These  are  the  most  eminentaud  most 
approved  of  the  whole  body  ;  and  a  very  excellent  set  of  Clergy  I 
really  believe  they  are.  We  have  about  the  same  number  of  Dea- 
cons among  the  travelling  Preachers,  who  exercise  the  office  of  Deacon 
according  to  the  plan  of  the  Church  of  England.  These  Ministers, 
both  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  must  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  the 
Conference  before  they  can  be  ordained.  A  Superintendent  only  or- 
dains the  Deacons,  and  a  Superintendent  must  make  one  of  the  Pres- 
bytery for  the  ordination  of  a  Priest  or  Elder;  and  the  Superintend- 
ents are  invested  with  a  negative  voice  in  respect  to  the  ordination 
of  any  person  that  has  been  elected  for  the  office  either  of  Elder  or 
Deacon.  Among  the  local  Preachers  there  is  no  higher  office  than 
that  of  a  Deacon.  The  local  Preacher  does  not  pass  through  an 
election  for  this  office  ;  but  if  he  bring  a  testimonial,  signed  by  three 
Elders,  one   of  whom  must  be  what  we  call  a  Presiding  Elder,  one 


11 

who  has  the  government  of  a  district,  i.  e.  several  circuits  joined 
together,  three  Deacons,  three  unordained  Preachers,  and  the  majority 
of  the  class  of  which  he  is  a  member,  or  the  stewards  and  leaders  of 
the  whole  society  of  which  he  is  a  member,  a  Superintendent  may 
then,  if  he  please,  ordain  him  ;  and  a  great  many  of  the  oldest  and 
wisest  of  the  local  preachers  have  been  ordained  Deacons  on  this 
plan. 

"  Now,  on  a  re-union  taking  place,  our  Ministers,  both  Elders  and 
Deacons,  would  expect  to  have,  and  ought  to  have,  the  same  autho- 
rity they  have  at  present,  of  administering  the  ordinances  according 
to  the  respective  powers  already  invested  in  them  for  this  purpose. 
/  well  know  that  they  must  submit  to  a  re-ordination,  which  I 
believe  might  be  easily  brought  about  if  every  other  hindrance 
was  removed  out  of  the  way.  But  the  grand  objection  would  arise  from 
the  want  of  confidence  which  the  Deacons  and  unordained  Preachers 
would  experience.  The  present  Bishops  might  give  them  such 
assurances  as  would  perhaps  remove  all  their  fears  concerning  Mew, 
but  they  could  give  no  security  for  their  successors,  or  lor  any  new 
Bishops  who  may  be  consecrated  for  the  Episcopal  Church  in  those 
States  which  have  not  at  present  an  Episcopal  Minister.  The  requi- 
sition of  learning  for  the  ministry  (I  mean  the  knowledge  of  the  New 
Testament  in  the  original,  and  of  the  Latin  tongue,)  would  be  an 
•insuperable  objection  on  this  ground,  as  the  present  Bishops,  and  the 
present  members  of  the  General  Convention,  can  give  no  sufficient 
security  for  their  successors.  And  the  Preachers  could  never,  I  be- 
lieve, be  induced  to  give  up  the  full  confidence  they  have  in  their 
present  Superintendents,  that  they  shall  in  due  time  rise  to  the  higher 
offices  of  the  Church,  according  to  their  respective  merits,  for  any 
change  of  situation  in  which  the  confidence  they  should  then 
possess  would  not  be  equivalent. 

**But  what  can  be  done  to  gain  tliis  confidence  on  the  plan  of  a  re- 
union of  the  two  Churches  ?  I  will  answer  this  important  question 
with  all  simplicity,  plainness,  and  boldness ;  and  the  more  so,  be- 
cause, 1st,  I  am  addressing  myself,  I  have  no  doubt,  to  a  person  of 
perfect  candor ;  2dly,  I  have  a  re-union  so  much  at  heart,  that  I 
would  omit  nothing  that  may,  according  to  the  best  of  my  judgment, 
throw  light  on  the  subject ;  3dly,  Because  I  think  I  am  not  in  dan- 
ger from  your  charitable  spirit,  to  be  suspected  in  the  present  instance, 
of  pressing  after  worldly  honor;  as  it  is  likely  I  shall  be  elected 
President  of  the  European  Methodists,  and  shall  not,  I  believe,  re- 
ceive greater  marks  of  respect  from  the  Methodists  in  these  States, 
supposing  I  ever  to  be  a  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  than  they  are  at  present  so  kind  as  to  show  me. 

"  Mr.Asbury,  our  resident  Superintendent,  is  a  great  and  good  man. 
He  possesses,  and  justly,  the  esteem  of  most  of  the  Preachers,  and 
most  of  the  people.  Now  if  the  Gcnerrd  Convention  of  the  Clergy 
consented  that  he  should  be  consecrated  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  on  the  supposition  of  a  re-union,  a  very  capital 
hindrance  would  be  removed  out  of  the  wav. 


^' Again,  I  love  the  Methodists  in  America,  and  could  nc?t  think  of. 
leaving  them  entirely,  whatever  might  happen  to  me  in  Europe.  The 
Preachers  and  People  also  love  me.  Many  have  a  peculiar  regard  for- 
me. Bnt  I  could  not,  with  propriety,  visit  the  American  Methodists  . 
possessing  in  our  Church  on  this  side  o^f  the  water  an  office  inferior 
to  that  of  Mr.  Asbury. 

"  But  if  the  two  houses  of  the  Convention  of  the  Clergy  would 
consent  to  your  consecration  of  Mr.  Asbury  and  me  as  Bishops  of 
the  Methodist  Society  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these 
United  States,  (or  by  any  other  title,  if  that  be  not  proper,)  on  the 
supposition  of  a  re-union  of  the  two  Churches,  under  proper  mutual 
stipulations  ;  and  engage  that  the  Methodist  Society  shall  have  a  re- 
gular supply,  on  the  death  oftheir  Bishops,  and  so,  ad  perpetuwn  the 
grand  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  Preachers  would  be  removed — they 
would  have  the  same  men  to  confide  in  whom  they  have  at  present, 
and  all  other  mutual  stipulations  would  soon  be  settled. 

"1  said,  in  respect  to  Preachers,  for  I  do  not  fully  know  Mr, 
Asbury 's  mind  on  the  subject.  I  have  my  fears  in  respect  to  his 
sentiments ;  and  if  he  do  not  accede  to  the  union,  it  will  not  take 
place  so  completely  as  I  could  wish.  I  wish  you  could  see  my  sin- 
ful heart,  but  that  is  impossible. 

''  I  think  I  need  not  observe  that,  if  things  were  brought  to  a  happy 
issue,  we  should  still  expect  to  enjoy  all  our  rights  as  a  Society  in  the 
most  exclusive  sense,  as  we  do  now  in  Europe  :  I  mean  the  receiving 
or  rejecting  membei-s  in  or  fnim  our  classes,  bands,  lovefeasts,  &c. 

"  I  have  had  the  honor  of  three  interviews  with  Bishop  White  on 
this  subject,  and  some  correspondence.  In  the  present  state  of  things 
I  must  entreat  you  to  lay  this  business  only  before  your  confidential 
friends  ;  and  if  you  honor  me  with  a  letter  by  the  June  packet,  di- 
rected to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke,  at  the  new  chapel.  City  road,  London, 
I  will  write  to  you  again  immediately  after  the  English  Conference, 
which  will  commence  in  Manchester  on  the  last  Tuesday  in  next 
July,  The  importance  of  the  subject  on  which  I  have  now  written 
to  you,  will,  I  think,  prevent  the  necessity  of  an  apology  for  th« 
liberty  I  have  taken  in  writing  to  you. 

"  Permit  me  to  subscribe  myself,  with  great  respect,  Right  Rev. 
Sir,  your  very  humble  and  obedient  servant, 

"  Thomas  Coxic. 

''Philadelphia,  May  14,  1791." 

This  letter  was  written  a  few  weeks  after  the  one  to  Bishop  White. 
It  is  another  proof  of  the  Doctor's  repentance — of  his  earnest  desire  to 
return  (together  with  his  people)  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church — and 
that  neither  he  nor  Asbury  had  any  title  to  the  office  of  Bishop  ;  for 
let  the  reader  note  that  what  he  especially  requests  is,  that  they 
might  both  be  consecrated  Bishops. 

But  the  Doctor  was  very  persevering.  He  made  a  third  applica- 
tion to  obtain  the  Episcopal  office,  as  appears  from  the  following 
letter  to  Wm.  Wilberforce,  Esq.  (This  may  be  found  in  the  "  Cor- 
respondence of  Wilberforce,"  vol.  2,  pp.  114,  115,  116,  117,  118  i' 


13 

^^  Jit  Samuel  Hague's,  Esq.,  Leeds^  Jpril  14,  1813. 
'•■*  Dear  and  highly  respected  Sir, 

"  A  subject  which  appears  to  me  of  great  moraeiit  lies  much  upon 
my  mind  ;  and  yet  it  is  a  subject  of  such  a  delicate  nature,  that  I 
vtannot  venture  to  open  my  mind  upon  it  to  any  one,  of  whose  can- 
dor, piety,  delicacy,  and  honor,  I  have  not  the  highest  opinion.  Such 
a  character  I  do  indubitably  esteem  you,  sir ;  and  as  such,  I  will  run 
the  risk  of  opening  my  whole  heartjo  you  upon  the  point. 

"  For  at  least  twelve  years,  sir,  the  interests  of  our  Indian  empire 
have  lain  very  near  my  heart.  In  several  instances  I  have  made 
attempts  to  open  a  way  for  missions  in  that  <;ountry,  and  even  for  mv 
going  over  there  myself.     But  every  thing  proved  abortive. 

"  The  prominent  desire  of  my  soul,  even  from  my  infancy,  (I  may 
almost  say)  has  been  to  be  useful.  Even  when  I  was  a  Deist  for 
•part  of  my  time  at  Oxford,  (what  a  miracle  of  grace  !)  usefulness 
was  my  most  darling  object.  The  Lord  has  been  pleased  to  fix  me 
for  about  thirty-seven  years  on  a  point  of  great  usefulness.  My  in- 
fluence in  the  large  Wesleyan  connexion,  the  introduction  and  super- 
intendence of  our  missions  in  different  parts  of  the  globe,  and  the 
wide  spfiere  opened  to  me  for  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  almost 
innumerable  large  and  attentive  congregations,  have  opened  to  me  a 
a  very  extensive  field  for  usefulness.  And  yet  I  could  give  up  all  for 
India.  Could  I  but  close  my  life  in  being  the  means  of  raising  a 
spiritual  Church  in  India,  it  would  satisfy  the  utmost  ambition  of  my 
soul  here  below. 

"  I  am  not  so  much  wanted  in  our  comi^xion  at  home  as  I  once 
was.  Our  Committee  of  Privileges,  as  we  term  it,  can  watch  over 
the  interests  of  the  body,  in  respect  to  laws  and  government,  as  well 
in  my  absence,  as  if  I  was  with  them.  Our  Missionary  Committee 
in  London  can  do  the  same  in  respect  to  missions ;  and  my  absence 
would  only  make  them  feel  their  duty  more  incumbent  upon  them. 
Auxilliary  committees  through  the  nation,  which  we  have  now  in 
contemplation,  will  amply  supply  my  place,  in  respect  to  raising  mo- 
ney. There  is  nothing  to  influence  me  much  against  going  to  India, 
but  my  extensive  sphere  for  preaching  the  Gospel.  But  this,  I  do 
assure  you,  sir,  sinks  crrnsiderably  in  my  calculation,  in  comparison 
of  the  high  honor  (if  the  Lord  was  to  confer  it  upon  me  in  His  Pro- 
vidence and  Grace)  of  beginning  or  reviving  a  genuine  work  of  religion 
in  the  immense  regions  of  Asia. 

"  Impressed  with  these  views,  I  wrote  a  letter  about  a  fortnight 
ago  to  the  Earl  of  Liverpool.  I  have  either  mislaid  the  copy  of  it, 
or  des.troyed  it  at  the  time,  for  fear  of  its  falling  into  improper  hands. 
After  an  introduction,  drawn  up  in  the  most  delicate  mannrr  in  my 
power,  I  took  notice  of  the  observations  made  by  Lord  Castlereagh 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  concerning  a  religious  establishment  in 
{ndia  connected  with  the  Established  Church  at  home.  I  tlien  sim- 
ply opened  my  situation  in  the  Wesleyan  connexion,  as  I  have  stated 
it  to  you,  sir,  above.  I  enlarged  on  the  earnest  desire  I  had  of  closing 
fiuy  life  in  India,  observing  that   if  his  Royal  Highness  the   Prince 


14 

Regent  and  the  Government  should  think  proper  to  appoint  me  their 
Bishop  in  India,  I  should  most  cheerfully  and  most  gratefully  accept 
the  offer.  I  am  sorry  I  have  lost  the  copy  of  the  letter.  In  my  let- 
ter to  Lord  Liverpool,  I  observed,  that  I  should,  in  case  of  my  ap- 
pointment to  the  Episcopacy  of  India,  return  most  fully  and  faithfully 
into  the  bosom  of  the  EstabUshed  Church,  and  do  every  thing  in  my 
power  to  promote  its  interest,  and  would  submit  to  all  such  restrictions 
in  the  fulfilment  of  my  office,  as  the  Government  and  the  Bench  of 
Bishops  at  home  should  think  necessary— that  my  prime  motive  was 
to  be  useful  to  the  Europeans  in  India  ;  and  that  my  second,  though 
not  the  least,  was  to  introduce  the  Christian  religion  among  the  Hin- 
does  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  peihaps,  also,  by  the 
sstablishment  of  schools. 

"  I  have  not,  sir,  received  an  answer.  Did  I  think  that  the  answer 
was  withheld,  because  Lord  Liverpool  considered  me  as  acting  very 
improperly  by  making  the  request,  I  should  take  no  further  step  in 
the  business.  This  may  be  the  case  ;  but  his  Lordship's  silence  may 
arise  from  other  motives  :  on  the  one  hand,  because  he  did  not  choose 
to  send  me  an  absolute  refusal;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  because 
he  did  not  see  it  proper,  at  least  just  now,  to  give  me  any 
encouragement.  When  I  was  in  some  doubt  this  morning  whether 
I  ought  to  take  the  liberty  of  writing  to  yoii,  my  mind  became  deter- 
mined on  my  being  informed  about  three  hours  ago,  that  in  a  letter 
received  from  you  by  iMr.  Hey,  you  observed  that  the  generahty  of 
the  House  of  Commons  were  set  against  granting  anything  of  an 
imperative  kind  to  the  Dissenters  or  Methodists  in  favor  of  sending 
Missionaries  to  India.  Probably  I  may  err  in  respect  to  the  exac« 
words  which  you  used. 

"  I  am  not  conscious,  my  dear  respected  sir,  that  the  least  degree 
of  ambition  influences  me  in  this  business.  I  possess  a  fortune  of 
about  1200/.  a-year,  which  is  sufficient  to  bear  my  travelling  expen- 
ses, and  to  enable  me  to  make  many  charitable  donations.  I  have 
lost  two  dear  wives,  and  am  now  a  widower.  Our  leading  friends 
through  the  connexion  receive  me  and  treat  me  with .  the  utmost 
respect  and  hospitality.  I  am  quite  surrounded  with  friends  who 
greatly  love  me ;  but  India  still  cleaves  to  my  heart.  I  sincerely 
believe  that  my  strong  inclination  to  spend  the  remainder  of  my  life 
in  India  originates  in  the  Divine  Will,  whilst  lam  called  upon  to  use 
the  secondary  means  to  obtain  the  end. 

"  I  have  formed  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Buchanan,  and 
have  written  to  him  to  inform  him  that  I  shall  make  him  a  visit  within 
a  few  days,  if  it  be  convenient.  From  his  house  I  intend,  Deo 
volente^  to  return  to  Leeds,  for  a  day,  and  then  to  set  off  next  week 
for  London.  The  latter  end  of  last  November  I  visited  him  before, 
at  Moat  Hall,  his  place  of  residence,  and  a  most  pleasant  visit  it  was 
to  me,  and  also  to  him,  I  have  reason  to  think.  He  has  been,  since 
I  saw  him,  drinking  of  the  same  bitter  cup  of  which  I  have  been 
drinking,  by  the  loss  of  a  beloved  wife. 


15 

**  1  would  just  observe,  sir,  that  a  hot  climate  peculiarly  agrees 
with  me.  I  was  never  better  in  my  life  than  in  the  West  Indies, 
during  the  four  visits  I  made  to  that  archipelago,  and  should  now 
prefer  the  torrid  zone,  as  a  climate,  to  any  other  part  of  the  world. 
Indeed,  I  enjoy  in  this  country,  though  sixty-five  years  of  age,  such 
an  uninterrupted  flow  of  health  and  strength  as  astonishes  all  my 
acquaititance.  They  commonly  observe  that  they  have  perceived 
no  difi'erence  in  me  for  these  last  twenty  years. 

"  I  would  observe,  sir,  as  I  did  at  the  commencement  of  my  letter, 
that  I  ilirow  myself  on  your  candor,  piety,  and  honor.  If  I  do  not 
succeed  in  ray  views  of  India,  and  it  were  known  among  the  Preach- 
ers that  I  had  been  taking  the  steps  that  I  am  now  taking,  (though 
from  a  persuasion  that  I  am  in  the  Divine  Will  in  so  doing,)  it  might 
more  or  less  affect  my  usefulness  in  the  vineyard  of  my  Lord,  and 
that  would  very  much  afflict  me.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  this,  I 
cannot  satisfy  myself  without  making  some  advances  in  the  business. 
I  consider,  sir,  your  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Stephen,  to  be  a  man  of 
eminent  worth.  I  have  a  very  high  esteem  for  him.  I  know  that 
his  yea  is  yea,  and  what  he  promises  he  certainly  will  perform. 
Without  some  promise  of  confidence  he  might,  if  he  were  acquainted 

with   the  present  business,  mention  it   to    Mr. ,  with  whom,  I 

know,  Mr.  Stephen  is    acquainted.     If   Mr.  were  acquainted 

with  the  steps  I  am  taking,  he  would,  I  am  nearly  sure,  call  immedi- 
ately a  meeting  of  our  Committee  of  Privileges,  and  the  consequence 
might  be  unfavorable  to  my  influence,  and  consequently  to  my  useful- 
ness among  the  Methodists.  But  my  mind  must  be  eased.  I  must 
venture  this  letter,  and  leave  the  whole  to  God,  and  under  Him,  sir, 
to  you. 

"I  have  reason  to  believe  that  Lord  Eldon  had,  (indeed  I  am  sure 
of  it,)  and  probably  now  has,  an  esteem  for  me.  Lord  Sidmouth  I 
do  think  loves  me.  Lord  Castlereagh  once  expressed  to  Mr.  Alexan- 
der Knox,  then  his  private  Secretary  in  Ireland,  his  very  high  regard 
for  me:  since  that  time  I  have  had  one  interview  with  his  lordship  in 
London.  I  have  been  favored  on  various  occasions  with  public  and 
private  interviev^^s  with  Lord  Bathurst,  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  your 
advice  whether  I  should  write  letters  to  those  noblemen :  particularly 
to  the  two  first,  on  the  present  subject;  or  whether  I  had  not  better 
suspend  every  thing,  and  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you  in  London. 
I  hope  I  shall  have  that  honor.  I  shall  be  glad  to  receive  three  or 
four  lines  from  you,  (don't  write  unless  you  think  it  may  be  of  some 
immediate  importance,)  signifying  that  I  may  wait  on  you  immedi- 
ately on  my  arrival  in  London. 

"  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  very  high  respect, 
"  My  dear  Sir,  your  very  much  obliged, 
"very  humble,  and  very  faithful  servant, 

"T.  Coke." 

I  shall  now  leave  this  subject  for  the  present,  intending  to  recur  to 
it  again. 

Mr.  A.  has  committed  several  mistakes  with  regard  to  our  Church, 


16 

in  that  portion  of  his  Tract  which  relates  to  this  subject.  He  says 
that  at  the  time  of  the  pseudo-ordination  by  Wesley,  (1784)  "  Pro- 
testant Episcopalians,  as  such,  did  not  exist  in  this  country."  Epis- 
copalians at  that  time,  were  the  same  body  as  previously  existed 
before  the  Revolution.  They  always  maintained  this  principle,  and 
our  General  Convention  declared  the  same.  And  according  to  those 
principles,  which  have  governed  the  Church  in  all  ages,  the  Metho- 
dists were  bound  to  continue  with  them,  especially  alter  we  obtained 
valid  Bishops.  Again,  he  says:  "Their  Church  was  not  formed 
till  some  years  after.  And  then,  with  much  difficulty,  did  they  obtain 
ordination  of  an  English  Bishop."  I  have  already  said  that  our 
Church,  after  the  Revolution,  was  the  same  body  that  existed  previ- 
ously. Some  modification,  however,  became  necessary.  But  that 
was  arranged,  7iot  "  several  years  ajter,^''  but  some  time  before  Wes- 
ley "laid  ms  iands  on  Coke."  And  our  first  Bishop  was  consecrated, 
not  "several  )^ears  after,"  but  the  very  same  year.  Again  :  he  says 
that  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  the  Methodists,  had  to  set  up  for 
themselves."  Episcopalians  did  not  set  up  for  themselves.  They 
were  "  set  up"  by  those  who  had  authority — by  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles.  Our  Church  is  not  a  recent  creation,  such  as  Metho- 
dism. It  is  an  extension  of  the  "  One  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,"*  "  against  which  the  gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail." 


CHAPTER   H. 


The  Principle  of  Succession  not  Uncharitable — Scripture  Proofs 
Considered — Quotations  from  the  Fathers  Examined — Their 
Testimony  in  favor  of  Episcopacy. 

Mr.  A.  endeavors  at  the  outset,  to  excite  prejudice  against  the 
doctrine  of  Succession,  by  representing  it  as  "uncharitable,"  "  ex- 
clusive," and  "  consigning  all  others  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God."  But  this  is  not  argument.  It  is  a  begging  of  the  question. 
The  question  is,  whether  the  commission  to  ordain  others,  which  the 
Saviour  gave  to  his  Apostles,  has  been  transmitted  to  our  times  in 
the  line  of  Bishops.  If  it  has,  then  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical 
Succession  is  true.  And,  if  true,  it  cannot  be  uncharitable  to  main- 
tain it;  for  Truth  and  Charity  can  never  be  opposed  to  one  another. 
They  always  go  hand  in  hand.  Truth  is  invariably  beneficial  to 
Man — and,  therefore,  to  embrace,  maintain  and  defend  it,  is  the  very 
essence  of  Charity.  And  as  to  its  being  exclusive — Truth  is  neces- 
sarily exclusive  of  what  is  false.  Christianity  itself  is  exclusive — 
it  excludes  all  other  Religions.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
exclusive — it  excludes  a  large  community  of  professing  Christians, 
and  yet,  Mr.  A.  holds  and  preaches  it.  And  as  to  its  "  consigning 
all  others  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God,"  (though  we  have 

*  The  Second  General  Council,  held  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  391, 
applied  this  term  to  the  Church. 


17 

never  said  so,)  Christianity  does  the  same.  What  would  Mr.  A, 
think  of  an  Infidel  who  should  begin  to  "  refute  "  Christianity 
by  urging  such  objections?  But  if  this  doctrine  be  not  true,  it  is  a 
nnistake  of  the  judgment,  and,  even  then  it  is  not  uncharitable — for 
Charity  is  an  affection  of  the  heart. 

There  is  but  one  condition  in  which  these  offensive  epithets  of 
Mr.  A.  would  be  correctly  applicable,  and  that  is,  if  we  claimed  the 
Succession  without  believing  in  it  ourselves.  But  this  he  does  not 
assert,  or  even  intimate,  nor  could  he  do  so,  having  no  proof,  without 
a  gross  violation  of  Charity.  For  these  reasons  his  introductory  re- 
marks, upon  this  point,  are  wholly  irrelevant,  and,  indeed,  unfair ; 
for  they  are  calculated  to  excite  prejudice,  both  against  the  doctrine 
and  those  who  hold  it.  All  men,  and  especially  Christian  Ministers, 
should  seek  to  promote  Truth  and  Love — both  of  which  are  always 
obstructed  by  Prejudice.  This  mode  of  attack,  I  am  sorry  to  have 
to  say,  has  become  very  common  ;  but,  though  it  succeed  for  a  time, 
it  must  ultimately  recoil  upon  those  who  adopt  it. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  Mr.  A's.  argument.  He  says  :  "We 
are  prepared  to  show  that  the  New  Testament,  and  all  the  Fathers, 
for  the  first  three  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era,  and  almost  all 
subsequent  Divines,  unite  in  declaring  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters 
are  the  same.  That  neither  Jesus  Christ  nor  His  Apostles  ever 
appointed  a  third  Order  of  Ministers."  In  support  of  this  position, 
he  adduces  several  passages  of  Scripture.  But,  all  that  these 
passages  prove,  (which  is  all  that  he  intends,)  is,  that  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  applied  to  the  same 
order.  And,  after  drawing  this  inference,  and  uttering  a  few  expres- 
sions of  triumph,  he  dismisses  the  Scriptural  argument  in  the  most 
abrupt  and  summary  manner.  But  he  surely  has  read  very  little 
upon  the  subject,  if  he  does  not  know  (as  it  seems)  that  Episcopa- 
lians grant  all  this.  The  terms  Presbyter,  Elder  and  Bishop  are 
indifferently  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  same  Order  of  Ministers. 
But  what  does  this  avail  him  ?  The  question  is  not  one  of  words 
and  names,  but  of  office,  rank  and  authority.  In  New  Testament 
language,  all  Christians  are  called  "  Saints.'^  But  now,  only  those 
of  extraordinary  piety.  The  word  Sabbath  means  only  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week — whereas,  now  it  is  very  commonly  applied  to  the 
Jirst.  Thus,  in  these  and  other  instances  which  might  be  specified, 
we  now  use  words  in  a  sense  very  different  from  what  they  bear  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  terms  Presbyter  and  Elder  are  perfecUy 
synonymous  ;  the  former  being  a  Greek  word  with  an  English 
termination,  but  possessing  the  same  signification  as  the  P.'nglish 
word  Elder.  The  term  Bishop  is  a  translation  of  the  Greek  word 
Episcopos,  which  signifies  Overseer  or  Superintendent.  As  the 
Pastor  of  a  Congregation  was  generally,  though  not  invariably,  a  man 
somewhat  advanced  in  life,  he  was  called  an  Ekler  ;  and  as  one 
having  the  superintendence  of  a  flock,  he  was  called  a  Bishop  or 
Overseer.  These  terms,  then,  as  the  reader  may  infer  from  their 
2* 


18 

meaning,  were  not  invented  in  the  days  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  and  applied  exclusively  to  the  office  of  the  Ministry.  They 
had  been  in  use  long  before.  And,  since  the  terms  were  not  peculiar 
to  the  office  to  which  they  were  applied,  we  cannot  expect  them  to 
indicate,  precisely,  the  rank  of  the  office.  Time  and  long  usage 
are  generally  necessary  to  give  words  a  distinct  aad  fixed  meaning  in 
a  system.  "^Accordingly,  the  terms  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to 
the  various  orders  of  the  Ministry,  were  not  then  fully  settled.  This 
is  evident  from  the  very  passages  of  Scripture  quoted  by  Mr.  A.  and 
from  others  that  might  be  adduced.  He  affirms,  and  very  correctly, 
that  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  in  these  passages,  signify  one 
and  the  same  order  of  men.  And  obviously,  if  two  different  words 
were  applied  to  the  same  office,  the  specific  title  of  the  office  could 
not  have  been  settled.  The  term  Deacon  is  as  often  applied  in  the 
New  Testament  to  Apostles  and  Presbyters,  as  to  the  office  which  it 
now  exclusively  designates.  See  I  Cor.  3  :  5  :  "  Who  then  is  Paul, 
and  who  Apollos,  but  Ministers  (the  original  is  Deacons,  literally 
translated)  by  whom  ye  believed?"  And  2  Cor.  3  :  6:  "  Who  also 
hath  made  us  able  Mmisters  (Deacons)  of  the  New  Testament?" 
See,  also,  2  Cor.  6 :  4,  1  Thess.  3:  2.  Where  the  word  Minister 
signifies  Deacon,  Mr.A's.  argument  is,  that  since  the  New  Testa- 
ment applies  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  to  one  Order,  therefore, 
there  was  no  higher  Order  than  that  of  Presbyter.  According  to  this 
mode  of  reasoning,  it  would  follow  that  there  was  no  higher  order 
than  Deacon,  since  that  term  is  applied  to  the  Apostles  and  other 
Ministers,  indiscriminately-  This  alone,  conclusively  proves  that 
nothing  can  be  inferred  from  names— that  they  were  not  then  fixed. 
Episcopalians  maintain  that  the  Apostles  occupied  the  first  or  highest 
grade  in  the  Ministry,  and  those  called  Bishops  and  Presbyters 
the  second,  and  those  called  Deacons,  the  third.  And  that  the 
Apostles  bestowed  the  power  of  ordination  and  superintendence  upon 
some  of  these  Presbyters,  who  towards  the  close  of  the  Apostolic 
Age,  obtained  exclusively  the  title  of  Bishop,  and  the  other  Presbyters 
exclusively  the  title  of  Presbyters,  and  thus  the  terms  became  fixed. 
This  is  admitted  by  Videlius,-'^  a  non-Episcopal  writer.  He  says  of 
Clemens  Romanus  :  (mentioned  by  St.  Panl,  Phil,  4:3:)  "Clemens 
solus  Episcopii  nomen  retinuitquiajam  invaluerat  distinctio  Episcopii 
et  Presbyterii."  Clemens  alone  retained  the  name  of  Bishop,  because 
there  had  now  grown  into  use  the  distinction  between  Bishop  and 
Presbyter;  i.  e.  that  it  had  then  become  common  to  apply  these 
terms  to  different  orders  of  men.  And  since  Clemens  became  Bishop 
of  Rome,  a  few  years  before  the  death  of  St.  John,  this  "  distinction" 
was  made  within,  though,  as  before  said,  towards  the  close  of,  the 
Apostolic  Age.  In  support  of  this  change  in  the  application  of  the 
term  Bishop,  we  have  the  testimony  of  several  Primitive  writers. 
Theodoret  says:    "The  same  persons  were  anciently  called  pro- 


*  See  the  answer  of  Charles  I.  to  the  Divines   who  argued  with 
him  in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  p.  \l. 


19 

miscLioiisly  both  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  whilst  those  who  are 
now  called  Bishops,  were  called  Apostles.  But  shortly  after,  the 
name  of  Apostles  were  appropriated  to  such  only  as  were  Apostles, 
indeed ;  and  then  the  name  of  Bishop  was  given  to  those  who  before 
were  called  Apostles."  (Theodoret,  Com.  on  1  Tim.d:  1.)  St. 
Hilary  says :  "  They  who  are  now  called  Bishops,  were  originally 
called  Apostles ;  but,  the  holy  Apostles  being  dead,  those  who  were 
ordained  after  them,  could  not  arrive  at  the  excellency  of  the  first, 
therefore,  they  thought  it  not  becoming  to  assume  the  name  of  Apostle. 
But,  dividing  the  name  Presbyter  and  Bishop,  they  left  the  Presbytery 
the  name  Presbyter,  and  they  themselves  were  called  Bishops." 
{See  Bingham'' s  Orig.  Ecdes.  Lib.  2:2:  Sec.  1.)  Here,  surely,  is 
a   full  and  satisfactory  explanation. 

That  a  change  has  occurred,  no  one  will  dispute.  According  to 
Mr.  A.  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  in  the  New  Testament,  are 
applied  to  the  same  office.  But  every  one  knows  that  they  are  not 
now  used  indiscriminately,  either  by  us  or  our  non-Episcopal 
brethren.  Mr.  A.  himself  is  called  Presbyter  or  Elder,  but  not 
Bishop — whereas,  in  the  New  Testament,  our  Elder  is  called  a 
Bishop.  I  know  he  thinks  himself  a  Bishop,  but,  he  is  not  called 
so.  Among  several  thousand  Methodist  Preachers,  there  are  but  six 
or  eight  who  are  designated  by  this  title.  Hence,  even  among  them 
this  word  is  employed  differently  from  what  it  is  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

If  Mr.  A.  had  endeavored  to  prove  that  these  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  of  the  New  Testament,  occupied  the  highest  grade  of 
the  Ministry,  instead  of  attempting  to  prove  what  no  one  denies — his 
remarks  might  have  been,  at  least,  relevant.  Episcopalians  maintain 
that  tnere  was  a  distinct  and  higher  order  of  men,  who  alone 
possessed  the  power  of  ordination,  and  who  have  transmitted  it  to 
our  times — the  Aposdes  of  our  Lord.  Under  the  Mosaic  IJispensa- 
tion,  we  find  a  three-fold  Ministry  with  these  titles:  High  Priest, 
Priests,  and  Levites  ;  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  Christ  himself, 
the  twelve  Apostles,  and  the  seventy  Disciples  ;  after  the  Ascension, 
the  twelve  Apostles,  the  Bishops,  Presbyters  and  the  Deacons. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  age,  the  names  became  finally 
settled,  as  they  now  are:  Bishops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  We 
maintain,  then,  that  the  Apostles  alone  ordained — and  those  called 
Elders,  never — that  the  Apostles  invested  Timothy,  Titus  and  others 
with  the  ordaining  power,  and  thus  it  has  descended  to  the  present 
time.  But,  as  Mr.  A.  has  not  even  assailed  this  point,  and  as  it 
would  occupy  much  more  space  than  we  can  spare  to  exhibit  the 
proofs  of  it,  I  must  content  myself  with  referring  the  reader  who 
wishes  to  examine  it,  to  full  treatises  upon  Episcopacy. 
Testimony  of  the  Fathers. 
Mr.  A.  begins  with  a  quotation  from  a  writer  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century — Jerome — passing  over  some  thirty  or  forty  who 
flourished  between  him  and  the  Aposdes.  Besides,  he  neglected  to 
tell  us  in  what  part  of  Jerome's  writings  the  quotation  is  to  be  found. 


20 

However,  since  the  passage  is  wholly  irrelevant,  we  will  excuse  him. 
If  the  reader  will  turn  to  it,  he  will  perceive  that  like  the  Scripture 
quotations  which  Mr.  A.  adduces,  it  only  asserts  (what  no  one 
denies)  that  at  first,  the  terras  Bishop  and  Presbyter  v/ere  applied 
to  one  order.  •'  This  was  the  case,"  he  says,  "  before  the  devil 
incited  men  to  make  divisions  in  Religion,  and  one  was  led  to  say  "7 
om  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollo  s.''''  Now,  I  need  not  inform  my  readers 
when  this  was,  as  there  is  an  obvious  reference  to  the  contentions 
among  the  Corinthian  converts,  which  St.  Paul  so  sharply  rebukes 
in  one  of  his  Epistles  ;  and,  consequently,  it  was  long  before  the  close 
of  the  Apostolic  age.  And  that  at  that  time  they  were  one,  is  not 
disputed.  Jerome  continues  :  "But  afterward  when  any  one  in 
Baptizing,  rather  made  Proselytes  to  himself  than  to  Christ,  it  icas 
every  where  decreed  that  one  person  elected  from  the  rest  of  the 
Presbyters  in  each  Church,  should  be  placed  over  the  others — that 
the  chief  care  of  the  Church  devolving  upon  him,  the  seeds  of 
division  might  be  taken  away."  This  does  not,  in  the  least,  conflict 
with  the  claims  of  Episcopalians,  but,  rather  sustains  them— because, 
if  Jerome  means  that  a  new  order  of  Ministers  was  set  over  the 
Elders,  his  language  is  perfectly  consistent  with — yea,  favors  the 
supposition  that  it  was  done  by  the  Apostles — since  he  represents 
the  divisions  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  as  the  cause.  And  therefore 
it  does  not  invalidate,  (as  Mr.  A.  insinuates,)  but  confirms  the  "  Di- 
vine right"  of  the  superior  order — for  an  order  created  by  the 
Apostles  must  have  been  by  "  Divine  right."  Mr.  A.  has  italicised 
the  word  elected,  as  if  those  placed  over  the  Presbyters  were  only 
elected,  which  by  no  means  follows.  Jerome  merely  asserts  that 
these  chief  officers  were  chosen  from  among  the  Presbyters,  which 
is  the  practice  in  our  Church  to  this  day.  Ordination,  of  course, 
followed  Election,  according  to  the  invariable  regulations  of  the 
Church.  But  Mr.  A.  says  it  was  merely  a  measure  of  expediency, 
not  of  law.  And  is  not  every  positive  institution  a  measure  of  expe- 
diency ?  Whatever  God  institutes — whether  directly,  or  by  the 
agency  of  inspired  men — must  be  both  a  matter  of  expediency  and 
a  matter  of  law.  It  further  must  be  of  perpetual  obligation,  unless 
obviously  temporary  in  its  nature,  or  repealed  by  the  same  authority 
— neither  of  which  is  the  case  in  this  instance.  But  it  is  useless 
to  multiply  words  upon  a  passage  whicb  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
our  claims.  When  our  opposers  resort  to  such  passages,  their  intel- 
ligent readers  cannot  fail  to  suspect  that  proof  is  very  scarce.  Jerome 
maintains  all  that  we  want — that  an  order  superior  to  that  of  Presby- 
ter was  established  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  His  writings 
contain  several  passages  in  support  of  three  Orders  of  the  Ministry. 
He  says:  "Without  the  Bishop's  license,  neither  Presbyter  nor 
,  Deacon  has  a  right  to  baptise."  Again,  he  says  :  "  For  what  does  a 
Bishop,  which  a  Presbyter  may  not  do,  excepting  ordination  i^"* 
This  shows  clearly  that  Presbyters,  according  to  Jerome,  have  no 
right  to  ordain.     He  further   testifies  in   our  favor,  that  the  Bishops 

■^  Epistle  to  Evangelus. 


21 

are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  :  addressing  the  Church,  he  says: 
"  The  Apostles  were  thy  fathers,  because  that  they  begat  thee.  But 
now  that  they  have  left  the  world,  thou  hast  in  their  stead  their  sons, 
the  Bishops."  Once  more  :  "  It  is  the  custom  of  the  Church  for 
Bishops  to  go  and  invoke  the  Holy  b^pirit,  by  imposition  of  liands, 
on  such  as  were  baptised  by  Presbyters  and  Deacons."  "  Do  you 
ask,"  says  he,  "where  this  is  written?  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles." (Dialog,  adv.  Lucif.)  This  passage  is  important,  not  only 
as  maintahiing  the  three  orders,  but  also  the  Scripturalness  of  the 
right  of  Confirmation,  which  Methodism  has  set  aside.* 

Mr.  A.  next  quotes  Clemens  Romanus.  But  unfortunately,  the 
passage  is  as  irrelevant  as  that  from  Jerome — it  merely  asserts  that 
the  Apostles  "  appointed  the  first  fruits  of  their  conversion  to  be 
Bishops  and  Deacons."  Clemens  lived  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
when  the  Presbyters  were  often  called  Bishops,  as  before  remarked  ; 
hence  he  gives  them  that  title.  The  Apostles  themselves  were  the 
Bishops  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  now  used.  As  they  ga- 
thered Congregations,  they  ordained  for  them  Presbyters  and  Deacons, 
which  were  sufficient  for  some  time — as  they  themselves  exercised  a 
superintendence  over  them  until,  by  the  increase  of  their  numbers,  a 
settled  Bishop  became  necessary.  But  farther  comment  is  unneces- 
ry,  as  the  following  passage  from  Clemens  exhibits  his  opinions  fully: 
"  It  will  behoove  us,  looking  into  the  depth  of  Divine  knowledge, 
to  do  all  things  in  order  whatsoever  our  Lord  has  commanded  us  to 
do.  He  has  ordained,  by  His  Supreme  will  and  authority,  both 
where  and  by  what  persons  they  (the  sacred  services)  are  to  be  per- 
formed. For  the  Chief  Priest  has  his  proper  services  ;  and  to  the 
Priests  their  proper  place  is  appointed  :  and  to  the  Levites  appertain 
their  proper  Ministries ;  and  the  laymen  is  confined  within  the 
bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  laymen,"     [Epis,  Cor.  §  40.) 

Here  he  calls  the  three  orders  of  the  Ministry,  by  the  names 
of  the  old  Priesthood — a  practice  very  common  with  the  Fathers. 
Mr.  A.'s  next  witness  is   Ignatius.     This  Father,  according   to  the 

*Dr.  Adam  Clarke's  Views  of  Confikmation. — In  the  first  vol. 
of  the  Life  of  Dr.  Clarke,  as  published  by  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern of  New  York,  in  i833,  the  Doctor  gives  the  following  account 
{p.  94)  of  his  own  confirmation : 

"  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  Bishop  of  Bristol  held  a  Confirmation 
in  the  Collegiate  Church.  I  had  never  been  confirmed,  and  as  I  had 
a  high  respect  for  all  the  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  I 
wished  to  embrace  this  opportunity  to  get  the  blessing  of  that  amia- 
ble and  Apostolic-looking  Prelate,  Dr.  Lewis  Bagot.  I  asked  per- 
mission ;  several  of  the  Preacher's  sons  went  with  me,  and  I  felt  mnch 
satisHiction  in  this  ordinance  ;  to  me  it  was  very  solemn,  and  the 
whole  was  well  conducted.  Mrs.  S.,  who  was  a  Presbyterian,  pitied 
my  being  "  so  long  held  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."  I  have  lived 
nearly  forty  years  since,  and  upon  this  point  my  sentiments  are  not 
changed.^^ 


22 

records  of  antiquity,  Avas  made  Bishop  of  Antioch  by  the  Apostle  St. 
Peter,  A.  D.  66 — over  which  he  presided  until  A.  D.  106 — when  he 
suffered  martyrdom    under   Trajan.*^     It  was  while   on   his  way  to 
Rome  to  lay  down  his  life  for  Christ,  that  he  wrote  those  charming 
Epistles  which  have  been  handed  down  to  our   times.     And  having 
occupied  so   conspicuous   a  position  in   the  Church  for   forty  years, 
during  most  of  which  time  he  was  conversant  with  the  Apostles,  (hav- 
ing survived   the  last  one,  St.  John,  only  four  years,)  his   testimony 
is  of  the  greatest  importance.     Now  let  us   examine  the  quotations 
from  his  writings  which  Mr.  A.  has  furnished  his  readers.     It  is  this : 
"  Presbyters  (Elders)  preside  in  the  place  of  the  Council  of  the  Apos- 
tles.    Be  ye  subject  to  your  Presbyters,  as  to  the  Apostles   of  Jesus 
Christ,  our  hope.     Let  all  reverence  the  Presbyters  (Elders)  as  the 
Sanhedrim   of  God,  and  College  of  Apostles."     As  usual,  Mr.   A. 
has  given  no  reference.     But  after  some  some  search  I  succeeded  in 
finding  the  words  quoted,  in  Ignatius'  Epistle  to  the  Trallians.    And 
I  am  sorry  to  have  to  state,  that  the  passage  is  most   shamefully  gar- 
bled.   Mr.  A.  has  here  evinced  either  the  most  inexcusable  ignorance, 
or   the    most  culpable  unfairness.     The    passage,  with   its  context, 
affords  the  most  conclusive  evidence  in   favor  of  Episcopacy,  or,  as 
Mr.  A.  calls  it,  Prelacy.     That  the    reader  may  judge,  I  will  quote 
the  whole  paragraph,  precisely  as  it  stands  in  the  Epistle.     Ignatius 
says  to  the  Trallians  :  "For  in  that  you  are  subject  to  your  Bishops 
as  to  Jesus  Christ,  you  seem  to  me  to  be  living  not  after  the  way  of 
men,  but  according  to  Jesus  Christ:  who  died  for  your  sakes,  that 
by  believing  in  His  death,  ye    may  from  death   escape.     It  is  there- 
fore your  bounden  duty,  as  it  also  is  your  practice,  to  do   nothing 
apart  from  the  Bishcp.     Be   subject,  moreover,  to  the  Presbyters, 
as  to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  hope  ;  may  we  be   found  to 
have  had  our  conversation  in  Him.     It  is  requisite,  too,  that  they  who 
are  Deacons  (Ministers)  of  the  mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,  should  be 
obliging  to    all   men  in    every  manner;  for  they  are  not    Ministers 
(Deacons)  of  meat  and  drink,  but   servants  of  God's  Church:  they 
must  therefore  guard  against  reproach,  as  against  fire.     Like\vise  let 
all   men  give   heed  to   the  Deacons,  as   to  an   institution  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  to   the  Bishops,  as  to  the  image   of  God  :  and  to  the 
Presbyters  as  to  the  Sanhedrim  of  God  and  the  College  of  Apostles. 
Without  these  there  is  no  Church.""     {Epis.  to   TralL)i     Let  the 
reader  compare  this    with  Mr.  A.'s  extract,  and  he  will  perceive  that 
sentences,  picked  out  here  and  there,  have  been  combined  together, 
?vhile  those  enjoining  submission  to  the  Bishops  are  omitted  !    It  is 
surely  a  desperate  case  when  such  means  are  resorted  to.     This  pas- 
sage not  only  proves  that  in  the  days  of  Ignatius  (who  was  cotempo- 

*  It  is  said  that  Ignatius  was  one  of  the  little  children  that  our 
Saviour  took  in  his  arms  and  blessed. 

1 1  have  two  editions  of  this  Epistle,  and  they  agree  exactly  in  the 
above  quotation. 


23 

rary  with  the  Apostles,)  there  were  three  distinct  orders  in  the  Minis- 
try, but  also  sustains  our  position,  that  although  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  applied  to  the  same  order, 
that  a  distinction  was  made  about  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  Age — by 
which  the  term  Bishop  ceased  to  be  applied  to  Presbyters,  and  was 
appropriated  exclusively  to  a  superior  order  of  men,  who  inherited 
the  ordaining  and  governing  authority  of  the  Apostles.  For  when 
Ignatius  exhorted  the  Trallians  to  obey  their  Bishop,  and  afterwards 
exhorts  them  to  obey  their  Presbyters,  it  is  obvious  that  the  terms 
were  then  no  longer  synonymous,  but  represented  two  distinct  orders. 
After  testimony  so  clear  and  positive  in  favor  of  a  three-fold  Ministry, 
it  seems  almost  superfluous  to  furnish  more  from  Ignatius.  But  I 
cannot  forbear  to  add  a  few  more  extracts  from  this  Martyred  witness 
of  Apostolic  Order. 

To  the  Magnesians  he  says  :  "  Seeing  now  it   is  my  privilege  to 
behold  you,  through  Damus,  your  most  holy  Bishop,  and  your  wor- 
thy Presbyters,  Bassus  and  Apollonius,  and  your  Deacon,  my  fellow- 
laborer,  Sotion,  toward  whom  I  am  tenderly  affectioned,  because  he 
IS  SUBJECT  TO  HIS  BisHOP  as  to  a  GKAcious  GIFT  FROM  GoD,  and  to 
the  Presbyters  as   to  an  institution  of  Jesus    Christ,  I  determined  to 
write  unto  you.  Your  duty  likewise  is  it,  not  to  bear  yourself  toward 
your  Bishop  with  a  freedom  proportioned  to  his  youth,  but  according 
to  the  power  of  God  the  Father,  to  concede  to  him  all  homage,  as  I  am 
aware  the  holy  Presbyters  do."  [Epis.  to   Magnes.)  Once  more  : 
warning  them  against  Heretics,  he  says  :  "  From  such  men  keep  your- 
selves guarded     And  guarded  ye  will  be,  if  ye  are  not  puffed  up,  nor 
separated  from  Jesus  Christ  our   Lord,  and  from  the  Bishop,  and 
from  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Apostles.     He  that  is  within  the  altar 
is  pure  :  he  that  is  without,  whoever,  viz  :  acts  independent  of  the 
Bishop,  the  Presbyters  and  the  Deacons,  is  a  man  of  unclean 
CONSCIENCE."    [Epis.  to  Trail.)  Again  :  "For  there  is  but  one  flesh 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,   and   one  cup  in  the  unity  of  his   blood  ; 
one  altar  ;  as  also   there  is  one    Bishop,*  togethkk  with  his 
Presbytery,  and  the  Deacons,  my  fellow  Skrvants  :  that  so, 
whatsoever  ye  may  do,  ye  may  do  it  according  to  the  will  of  God.'' 
"  Now  if  ye  be  willing,  it  is  not  impossible  for  you  to  do  this  for  the 
sake  of  God  ;  as  also   the  other   neighboring  Churches  have   sent 
them,  S03IE  Bishops,  some  Priests, and  Deacons."   (Epist.  Philad.} 
I  pass  on  to  the  last   Father  that  Mr.  A.  quotes — Polycarp,  from 
whose  writings  he    gives  this  extract :  "  Polycarp,   and   Presbyters 
that  are  with    him,  to  the   Church  of  God,  which  is    at  Phillippi." 
"  Be  subject  to  the   Presbyters  (Elders)  and  Deacons,  as    unto  God 
and  Christ."     The  first  sentence  I  find  in  Polycarp's   Epistle  to  the 
Phillippians  ;  but  like  the  other  quotation  of  Mr.  A,  instead  of  oppos- 
ing Prelacy,  sustains  it.     Polycarp  was  Bishop  of  Smyrna.    Ignatius, 
Jtie  father  before  quoted,  wrote  him  an  Epistle,  (which  is  now  before 
me,)  commencing  with  these  words  :  "  Ignatius,  who  is  also   called 


^Anciently,  as  now,  there  was  generally  but  one  Bishop  in  a  Diocese. 


24 

Tlieophorus,  to  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  the  SmyrnjEAns."  He  also 
wrote  an  Epistle  to  the  Smyrnasans,  in  which  I  find  this  passage  : 
"  See  that  ye  all  follow  your  Bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  the  Father  ; 
and  the  Presbyters  as  the  Apostles.  And  reverence  the  Deacons  as 
the  command  of  God.  Let  no  man  do  anything  of  what  belongs  to 
the  Church,  separately  from  the  Bishops."  Thus  it  is  evident  that 
Polycarp  was  Bishop  of  the  Smyrna^ans,  and  of  a  distinct  and  supe- 
rior Order — although  he  associates  his  Presbyters  with  himself  in  ad- 
dressing the  Phillippians.  In  acts  15:  23,  we  find  Apostles  and 
Elders  and  Brethren  coupled  together  in  a  similar  manner. 

The  other  passage  which  Mr.  A.  quotes  from  Polycarp,  can 
prove  nothing  to  his  purpose.  Polycarp  writes  an  Epistle  to  the 
Phillippians,  in  which  he  mentions  only  Presbyters  and  Deacons,, 
therefore  Mr.   A.  infers,    not  only  that   there  was  no   Bishop  over 

THEM,  BUT  NO  BiSHOP  IN  ANY    PART    OF     THE  WORLD.       Is    tllis  SOUnd 

logic?  Since  Polycarp  mentions  no  Bishop,  I  admit  that  it  is  there- 
fore PROBABLE  that  there  was  no  Bishop  at  Phillippi  at  the  time 
HE  WROTE.  This  is  all  that  can  be  reasonably  inferred.  In  the  State 
of  Indiana,  and  some  others,  we  have  a  number  of  Presbyters  and 
Deacons,  but  no  Bishop.  Now  suppose  one  of  our  Bishops  were 
to  write  an  Episde  to  the  membersof  the  Church  in  Indiana,  contain- 
ing this  passage  :  "Be  subject  to  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  as 
unto  God  and  Christ ;"  but  making  of  course  no  mention  of  a  Bishop, 
how  delusive  would  be  the  inference,  that  there  are  no  Bishops  at 
all  in  the  Church.  Besides,  we  have  already  proved  from  the 
testimony  of  Ignatius,  that  at  'Smyrna  there  were  not  only  Deacons 
and  Presbyters,  but  also  a  Bishop  at  their  head — this  very  same 
Polycarp,  that  Mr.  A.  quotes  to  prove  that  in  his  days  there  were  but 
two  Orders  in  the  Church  ! 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  quotations  which  Mr.  A.  has  made  from 
the  Fathers.  He  tells  us  that  similar  quotations  might  be  made 
from  Justin  Martyr,  Iranaeus,  Tertullian  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus.'* 
Perhaps  they  might,  but  certainly  my  readers  will  agree  that  "similar 
quotations"  would  avail  but  little.  But  since  he  has  not  favored  us 
with  any  passages  from  their  writings,  of  course,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  examine  their  testimony — however,  I  will  set  before  the 
reader  the  testimony  of  at  least  two  of  them.  Tertullian,  who  was 
only  a  Presbyter,  and,  therefore,  could  have  had  no  wish  to  magnify 
the  powers  of  the  Bishop,  says — "The  right  of  administering  this 
ordinance,  (Baptism)  belongs  to  the  Chief  Priest,  which  is  the 
Bishop,  next  to  him,  the  Presbyters,  and  the  Deacons  have  the 
right  to  administer  it,  but  not  without  the  Bishop's  authority, 
in  regard  to  the  honor  of  the  Church,  which  being  kept  inviolate, 
peace  is  safe."  (Tertul.  de  Baptism,  §  17,  Ed.  Paris,  A.  D.  1695, 
p,  230.)  From  this  passage,  we  learn  these  things  :  First,  since 
Tertullian  calls  the  Bishop  the  Chief  Priest,  that  the  analogy  between 
the  Jewish  Priesthood  and  the  Christian  Priesthood  was  understood 
in  the  first  century.  Second,  that  not  only  Presbyters,  but  the 
Deacons  also,  Baptised.       Thirdly,   that  neither   Presbyters   nor 


25 

Deacons  could  Baptise,  except  by  virtue  of  authority  derived 
FROM  THE  Bishop  in  ordination.  Again,  writing  against  the  heretics 
of  his  day,  he  says:  "But  if  they  dare  to  insert  themselves  into  the 
Apostolic  Age,  in  order  that  they  may  appear  to  have  been  handed 
down  from  the  Apostles,  inasmuch  as  they  subsistedin  their  time,  we 
may  say :  let  them  show  the  o?>igixals  of  their  Churches  : 
let  them  unroll  the  list  of  their  Bishops  descending  by 
succession  from  the  beginning,  and  prove  that  their  first  Bishop 
had  his  author  and  predecessor,  either  among  the  Apostles,  or  from 
those  Apostolic  men  who  labored  with  the  Apostles.  For  in  this 
ma>ner,  the  Apostolic  Churches  prove  their  authority.  Thus 
the  Church  of  the  Smyrnaeans  declare  that  Polycarp  was  placed  there 
by  John,  (Tertul.  de  Paerscript.  Haeretic.  §31,  §32,  ib.  p.  213.) 
What  does  Mr.  A.  say  to  this  test  ?  I  presume  he  would  rather 
resort  to  his  plausible  but  fallacious  argument  of  "success." 

Now  let  us  hear  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  was  born  about  the 
time  of  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John.     Having  mentioned  some  of 
the  rules    of  conduct  contained  in  Scripture,  he  says;  "There  are 
other   precepts  without  number  which  concern  men,  in  particular 
capacities :  some  which  relate  to  Presbyters ;  others  which  belong 
to  Bishops;  others  respecting  Deacons."     (Peddag.  Lib.  3,  c.  12.) 
Such  was  the   opinion  of  one  who  had  conversed  with  those  who 
had  conversed  with  the  Apostles,  respecting  the  contents  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Yet  Mr.  A.,  seventeen  centuries  afterwards,  writes,  "Her 
Great  Head  has  laid  down  no  special  form  of  Church  Government." 
(jD,  20.)    This  remark  casts  such  dishonor  upon  God,  that  I  shudder 
to  notice  it.     God,  the  Head  and  Founder  of  the  Church,  and  yet 
has  left  it  without  any  special  form  of  Government ! !     Has  short 
sighted  man  ever  founded  a  community  or  society  without  a  form 
of  government?     But  I   am   anticipating.     Another  passage   from 
Clemens.     He  says:  "  In  the  Church,  the  orders  of  Bishops,  Pres- 
byters,  and  Deacons,  are,  I  think,  imitations  of  the  angelic  glory." 
(Strom.  Lib.  6.)     And  now  I  will  summon  from  among  the  ancient 
worthies  too  or  three,  not  mentioned  by  Mr,  A.     Origen,  Catechist 
of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  in  Egypt,  A.  D.,  230,  says  :  "Shall  I 
not  be  subject  to  my  Bishop,  who  is  ordained  of  God  to  be  my 
Father?     Shall  I  not  be  subject  to  the  Presbyter,  who  by  the  Divine 
condescension,  is  placed  over  me?" — (20th  Homily  on  ^t.  Mathew.) 
Cypriun,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  250,)  says,  "This,  brother,  is 
and  ought  to  be,  our  principal  labor  and  study,  to  the  utmost  of  our 
power,  to  take  care  that  the  unity  may  still  obtain  which  was  de- 
livered BY  our  Lord  and  by  his  Apostles  to  us  their  successors." 
(Epistle  to  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome.)     In  another  place  he  says, 
"From   thence,  through   the  course  of  times   and  successions,  the 
ordination  of  Bishops,  and  the  frame  of  the  Church,  is  transmitted, 
so  that  the  Church  is  built  upon  the  Bishops,  and  all  her  aff;urs  are 
ordered  by  the  Chief  Rulers  ;  and,  therefore,  seeing  this  is  God's 
appointment,  I  must  needs  wonder  at  the  audacious  daring  of  some 
who  have  chosen  to  write  to  me  as  if  in  the  name  oi'  a  Church, 


26 


whereas  a  Church  is  only  constituted  in  the  Bishop,  Clergy,  and 
faithful  Christians." — (Epistle  to  the  Lapsed.)  But  I  will  not  lire 
my  reader's  patience  by  giving  additional  testimony,  being  wiling 
that  he  should  now  judge  whether  Mr.  A.  is  correct  in  stating  that 
we  have  "none"  of  the  Fathers  in  our  favor. 


CHAPTER  III. 

PowelVs  Argument  Examined — Wesley^s  Ordination  of  Coke — 
Coke's  Efforts  to  obtain  Consecration — Methodist  Organi- 
zation— Church  Government  Instituted  in  Scripture — Some 
Passages  of  Presley's  and  Coke's  Letters  Reviewed — Schism 
Forbidden  in  Scripture — 7 he  Secession  oj  the  Methodists 
Unjustifiable—Divisions,  and  other  Evil  Fruits  of  Methodism.. 

The  argument  which  Mr,  A.  borrows  from  Powell,  may  influence 
those  who  already  think  with  him,  and  even  perplex  some  who  do 
not — but  a  little  reflection  will  enable  the  candid  mind  to  see  that  it 
is  a  fallacy.  This  is  the  argument : — "The  two  Sacraments  of  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  the  greatest  Ritual  Ordinances  in  the 
Church.  Ordination  is  not  a  Sacrament;  it  is  therefore  less  than  a 
Sacrament ;  and  Presbyters  have  authority  to  administer  the  Sacra- 
ments ;  therefore,  they  have  power  to  confer  Orders."  First,  then, 
I  remark,  that  this  argument  m,ust  be  a  sophism — for  if  it  be  sound, 
it  proves  too  much — which  is  shown  in  this  way.  Baptism  is 
greater  than  Ordination ;  therefore,  he  who  has  authority  to  Baptise, 
has  authority  to  confer  Ordination,  Deacons  have  authority  to 
Baptise;  therefore,  Deacons  have  authority  to  confer  Ordination. 
Now,  this  last  conclusion,  is  contrary  not  only  to  the  principles  of 
the  Church — but  also  to  the  principles  of  Methodism  and  Presby- 
terianism.  Mr.  A.,  as  well  as  we,  denies  that  a  Deacon  has  the 
right  to  ordain,  though  it  is  evident  that  he  has,  according  to  the 
premises  contained  in  the  argument  above  stated.  But  inaa:much  as 
he  has  not  this  authority,  the  conclusion  being  false,  the  premises 
from  which  it  is  logically  deduced,  must  be  false  also.  And  since 
the  premises  are  manifestly  false,  the  conclusion  which  Mr.  Powell 
and  Mr.  A.  draw,  viz.  that  Presbyters  have  the  right  to  Ordain,  is 
false  too. 

This  is  a  sufficient  refutation — but  1  wfll  add  the  great  question 
is,  whether  Presbyters  have  the  authority  to  Ordain :  i.  e.  the 
authority  to  commission  other  men  to  ordain  and  administer  the 
Sacraments.  And  whether  a  Sacrament  be  greater  than  Ordination, 
i.e.,  the  act  of  Ordination  is  irrelevant.  The  authority  to  commission 
others,  both  to  Ordain  and  to  administer  the  Sacraments,  is  obviously 
greater  than  the  authority  to  administer  only  the  Sacraments,  Be- 
sides, a  Presbyter,  as  an  officer  of  the  Church,  can  possess  no  authority 
but  what  the  Church  has  given  him,  and  if  the  Church  has  never 
given  him  the  ordaining  commission,  he  cannot  exercise  it,  even  if  it 


27 

be  less  than  the  act  which  he  is  empowered  to  perform.     A  Judge 
can  preside  in  a  Court  of  Justice,  and  give  sentence  according  to  the 
prescribed  regulations  ;  but  he  cannot  commission  another  man  to  do 
so,  neither  can  he  perform  the  far  inferior  functions  of  a  Constable. 
Yet  it  is  by  such  reasoning  that  Mr.  A.  maintains  that  Mr.  Wesley 
had  authority  to  ordain  others !  Reasoning  that  proves  (if  it  proves 
any  thing)  that  even  Deacons  can  ordain !    Such  is  the  reasoning  by 
which  Mr.  A.  proves  himself  in  the  succession  !    But  he  not  only 
claims  for  Mr.  Wesley  this  authority  upon  such  false  reasoning — but 
also  makes  Mr.  W.  exercise  it  in  the  must  absurd  way  imaginable. 
He   says  that   Wesley  ''did  ordain  Dr.    Coke!"  (p.  13.^     Now 
since    both   of    these   men   were  Presbyters    of  the    Church — one 
Presbyter  ordains  another  Presbyter !  According  to  Mr.  A.,  Wesley 
had  authority  to  ordain,  because  he  was  a  Presbyter :  if  so,  Coke 
being  a  Presbyter,  possessed  the  same  authority — and  therefore,  had 
as  much  right  to  ordain  Wesley  as  Wesley  had  to  ordain  him.     Mr. 
A.   maintains  that  a  Presbyter  has  as  much  authority  as  a  Bishop, 
indeed  that  they  are  one  and  the  same.     This  is  true  or  false.     If 
true,  then  Coke  needed  no  further  ordination.    If  false,  JVesley  could 
notconfer  it.  By  the  former,  Coke's  pretended  ordination  by  Wesley 
would  be  sacrilege  :  by  the  latter  a  nullity.     Mr.  A.  says  (p.   13) 
"From  him  (Dr.  Coke,)  all  Methodist  Ministers  have  received  their 
ordinations,  and   with  it,  they  are  perfectly  satisfied.     Nor  would 
they  give  a  fig  to  have  the  authority  of  their  orders  heightened  by  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Primate  of  England."     But  it  seems 
Dr.  Coke    (who  ought  to  have  understood  the  matter)  thought  dif- 
ferendy.    In  1784,  Mr.  Wesley  "appointed  him  a   Superintendent," 
over  the  Methodists  in  this  country.     After  he  had  been  here  a  shor: 
time,  he  assumed  the  title  of  Bishop,  for  which  Mr.  Wesley  in  1788 
most  severly  rebukes  him.     In   April,  1791,  he  writes  to   Bishop 
White,  proposing  to  return  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  and  stating 
that,  'Hhe  generality  of  the  Methodist  Preachers,  perhaps  none  of 
them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  a  re-ordination  f^  though  this,  o{ 
course,  could  not  be  done  without  acknowledging  the  nullity  of  the 
ordination  which  Dr.  Coke  had  given  them.     Again:  a  little  later 
he  writes  to  Bishop   Seabury,  proposing  the  return  of  the  Methodists 
to  the  Church,  and  stating,  ''I well  know  that  they  {the  Preachers^) 
must  submit  to  a  re-ordination''^ — "//ie  magnitude  of  the  object 
would  justify  considerable  sacrifices'''' — and  suggesting  that  he  and 
Mr.  Asbury  should  be    consecrated  Bishops — although  they  had 
been  claiming  the  authority  of  Bishops  several  years.     Once  more: 
Dr,  Coke  was  so  fully  convinced  that  he  was  no  Bishop,  and  so 
anxious  to   be   made   one,  that  in  1813  he  writes  to  Wilberforce, 
promising  to  "return,  most  fully  and  faithfully  into  the  bosom  of  the 
established   Church,"  if  they  \vould  make  him  Bishop  of  India! 
Thus,  wha.  Mr.  A.  is  satisfied  with — the  man  to  whom  he  traces  it, 
was  sodissc-isfied  with,  that  he  requests,  humiliating  as  it  must  iiave 
been,  at  three  distinct  times,  and  of  three  different  persons.  Episco- 
pal  Ordination !     What   Mr.  A.  would  not  "give  a  fig  for,"  his 


28 

^'First  Bishop''^  repeatedly  and  most  humbly  begged  and  esteemed 
worthy  of  "considerable  sacrifices."  If  a  Churchman  now  dares  to 
intimate  that  Methodist  Orders  are  invalid,  it  is  termed  *'slander," 
bigotry"  and  "persecution."  Although  the  mayi  ivho  conferred 
them,  again  and  again  acknowledged  their  insufficiency. 

Mr.  A's  tirade  against  Bishops,  and  expressions  in  favor  of  minis- 
terial parity  would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  there  is  but  one  Order  or 
rank  of  Ministers  in  the  Methodist  organization  ;  whereas,  in  this 
particular,  it  resembles  the  Church  as  nearly  as  the  shadow  can 
resemble  the  substance:  it  is  nominally  Episcopal  In  the  Methodist 
Book  of  Discipline,  the  reader  will  find  three  different  offices  or 
forms — the  first  for  ordaining  Deacons — the  second  for  ordaining 
Presbyters,  and  the  third /or  ordaining  Bishops — all  copied  (with 
a  few  slight  omissions)  verbatim  et  literatim.,  from  our  Prayer 
Book.  Among  the  Methodists,  as  in  the  Church,  a  man  cannot 
baptise  until  he  has  been  ordained  a  Deacon — he  cannot  administer 
the  Lord's  Supper  alone,  until  he  has  been  ordained  a  Presbyter,  and 
he  cannot  administer  ordination  (unless  all  the  Bishops  fail)  until  he 
has  been  ordained  Bishop.  Is  this  ministerial  parity  ?  Is  this  con- 
sistent with  their  theory,  that  Presbyter  and  Bishop  are  the  same 
in  rank  and  authority  ?  If  a  Presbyter  is  a  Bishop,  as  Mr.  Wesley 
professed  to  have  been  convinced,  and  as  Mr.  A.  contends — why  do 
the  Methodists  ordain  a  Presbyter,  again,  before  he  can  receive  the 
litle,  and  perform  the  functions  of  a  Bishop?  Is  not  this  absurd? 
Thus  the  principle  and  theory  upon  which  they  forsook  the  Church, 
though  sii\\  professed,  is  practically  abandoned.  If  Mr.  A.  were  to 
act  as  Mr.  Wesley  is  said  to  have  done,  undertake  to  confer  ordina- 
tion, he  would  be  "expelled  from  the  connection."  And  yet,  if  a 
Churchman  calls  in  question  the  propriety  of  Wesley's  act,  he  is 
accused  of  "  exclusiveness,  intolerance,"  &;c.  If  Mr.  Wesley 
did  ordain  Dr.  Coke,  how  is  such  an  act  to  be  reconciled  with  Mr. 
Wesley's  obligation  to  the  Church  ?  Before  God's  Holy  Altar,  he 
had  solemnly  promised  to  obey  the  Bishops,  and  to  conform  to  the 
regulations  and  principles  of  the  English  Church.  According  to  these 
principles  and  regulations,  07ily  the  Bishops  were  authorized  to 
admit  men  to  the  Ministry,  and  yet  while  a  Clergyman  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore  bound  to  submit  to  its  regulations — he  per- 
forms an  act  which  was  in  its  nature  and  tendency  subversive  of  order 
and  government,  and  also  a  direct  violation  of  his  ordination  vows. 
Mr.  Wesley  was  of  course  at  liberty  to  separate  from  the  Church, 
bztt  while  he  remained  in  it,  he  was  morally  bound  to  acquiesce  in 
its  established  arrangements,  supposing  that  they  were  merely 
human,  and  especially  in  one  of  so  much  moment  as  this.  No 
society,  religious  or  civil,  could  exist,  if  its  m.embers  were  permitted 
to  perform  whatever  functions  they  might  choose. 

I  know  the  reverential  reat^rd  which  our  Methodist  brethren  enter- 
tain for  the  memory  of  Wesley,  and  I  am  sorry  to  make  remarks 
which  may  give  them  pain.  But  let  them  impartially  consider  the 
relation  and  obligations  of  Wesley  to  the  Church,  and  surely  they 


29 

cannot  but  adrr.it,  either,  that  Wesley  did  not  undertake  to  ordain 
and  to  organize  a  distinct  sect,  or  that  his  conduct  was  utterly  un- 
justifiable. As  long  as  they  are  Methodists,  they  feel  bound,  Preachers 
and  People,  to  conform  to  the  regulations  of  their  DiscipUne.  And 
was  not  Wesley,  as  long  as  he  continued  in  the  Church,  (which  he 
did  to  the  day  of  his  death)  equally  bound  to  conform  to  its 
regulations? 

Let  Mr.  Wesley's  relation  to  the  Church  be  candidly  considered, 
and  the  view  taken  by  "Tract  No.  4"  that  he  did  7iot  intend  to 
ordain,  whether  correct  or  not,  must  appear  charitable  at  least. 

I  have  mentioned  that  the  Methodists  have  nominal  Episcopacy — 
the  only  "plea"  that  they  make  for  it,  however,  is  "expediency," 
says  Mr.  A.  Episcopacy  then  is  expedient,  i.  e.,  the  best  adapted 
to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  Church.  But  does  not  that  very  fact 
render  it  probable  that  it  is  the  Divinely  Appointed  mode  of  Ecclesi- 
astical Organization  ?  Since  the  Divine  Wisdom  is  perfect — the  plan 
which  is  best,  would  certainly  have  been  instituted.  And  that 
some  plan  was  instituted,  is  admitted  by  nearly  all  Christians.* 
Mr.  A.  denies  this  in  one  part  o(  his  pamphlet,  but  he  certainly 
contradicts  himself,  as  in  another  part  he  endeavours  to  prove  that 
his  theory  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  surprising  to  me, 
that  any  one  with  the  New  Testament  before  him,  should  assert  thai 
Ood  has  instituted  "no  special  form  of  Church  Government."  Let 
the  reader  first  remember  how  often  the  Gospel  system  is  called  a 
kingdom,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  And  can  there  be 
a  kingdom  without  a  "Form  of  Government?"  Let  him  then 
consider  the  commission  which  the  Saviour  gave  to  his  Apostles, 
"As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."  "I  appoint 
unto  you  a  kingdom  as  my  Father  appointed  unto  me."  "Whatsoever 
ye  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  Heaven."  Does  not  this 
imply  a  "Form  of  Government?"  Again,  "Upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 
Could  a  Church  be  built  without  a  "Form  of  Government?"  Let 
him  further  consider  the  many  passages  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  in 


*  "The  visible  Church,  which  is  also  Catholic  or  Universal  under 
the  Gospel  *  *  *  *  is  the  Kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary 
possibility  of  salvation^  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  chap. 
25,  sec.  2. 

"Jesus  Christ,  who  is  now  exalted  far  above  all,  principality  and 
power,  hath  erected  in  this  world  a  Kingdom  which  is  his  Church." 
Presbyterian  Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  1,  sec.  1. 

In  a  report  to  the  late  General  Assembly,  by  a  Committee  of 
which  the  Rev.  Robt.  J.  Breckenridge,  D.  D.,  was  Chairman,  they 
say  of  the  famous  Westminister  Assembly  of  Divines,  tliat  with  all 
the  differences  in  that  body  on  other  subjects,  "they  were  entirely  of 
one  mind  in  asserting  Church  Government  to  he  jure  divino.^^ 

See  also  the  Dutch  Reformed  Formularies. 


30 

the  Epistles  which  relate  to  ordination  and  to  the  administration  of 
discipline — all  of  which  imply  a  Form  of  Government.  Surely  no 
one  will  deny  that  there  was  a  Church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
instituted  by  the  Saviour,  either  in  person  or  by  the  agency  of  the 
Apostles.  But  it  is  obvious  that  a  Church  could  not  have  existed, 
any  more  than  any  other  association  or  society,  without  a  Form  of 
Government.  If  then,  there  was  a  Church,  it  must  have  had  a  Form 
of  Government,  coeval  with  it.  And  since  the  Church  was  founded 
by  the  Saviour  through  his  Apostles,  i.e.,  by  "Divine  Right"  or 
authority — the  form  of  government,  which  was  necessarily  a  part  of 
it,  must  be  by  "Divine  Right"  also.  But  has  not  Mr.  A.  contradicted 
his  own  standards  also  ?  In  the  "form"  of  ordaining  Deacons,  con- 
tained in  the  Methodist  Discipline,  there  is  a  prayer  containing  these 
words :  "  Almighty  God,  who  by  thy  Divine  Providence  hast 
appointed  divers  Orders  of  Ministers  in  thy  Church,  and  didst 
inspire  thy  Apostles  to  choose  into  the  Order  of  Deacons,  thy  first 
Martyr  St.  Stephen,  with  others."  Here  then,  is  a  recognition  of 
the  Divine  institution  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  by  the  Methodist 
Discipline  ;  which  Mr.  A.  has  denied,  by  asserting  that  God  "has 
laid  down  no  special  form  of  Chuich  Government" — for  in  the 
phrase,  "Church  Government" — he  must  of  course  refer  chiefly,  if 
not  exclusively  to  the  Ministry,  otherwise  his  remark  is  irrelevant  — 
that  being  the  great  matter  in  dispute.  Let  the  reader  note  in  this 
quotation  from  the  Discipline,  the  phrase,  '-^divers  orders^^ — which 
implies  that  this  Divine  Ministry  embraces  various  Orders  by  Divine 
arrangement.  The  word  "divers"  cannot  mean  less  than  two. 
Consequently,  the  doctrine  of  the  Discipline  is,that  God  has  instituted 
at  least  two  Orders  of  Ministers — which  is  inconsistent  with  *'Minis- 
terial  parity"  also.  Thus  it  seems,  the  Discipline  claims  "Divine 
Right"  for  two  Orders — notwithstanding  Mr.  A.  asserts  that  to  this 
claim  can  be  "traced  every  drop  of  Protestant  blood  which  has  been 
shed  from  the  first!"  (p.  23.; 

The  Discipline  being  judge,  then,  God  has  instituted  a  Ministry  in 
the  Church.  And  according  to  the  principle  before  mentioned,  if  an 
Episcopal  Ministry  be  expedient  (as  Mr.  A.  concedes)  i.  e.,  the  best, 
the  Ministry  'which  God  instituted,  must  have  been  Episcopal,  for 
of  course  God  must  have  instituted  the  best. 

But  further,  Mr.  A.  has  also  contradicted  Mr.  Wesley,  although 
Wesley's  writings  are  acknowledged  to  be  the  authoritative  exposi- 
tions of  the  Methodist  creed.*  The  Prayer  Book  asserts,  that 
"from  the  Apostles''  tirnes^''  there  have  been  these  Orders  of  men  in 

*  We  find  the  following  in  the  Christian  Advocate  (Methodist 
Organ)  of  Feb.  8th,  1843.  "The  Bible  is  the  supreme  authority  in 
matter  and  manner  for  a  Methodist  Minister,  Next  to  it,  are  the 
articles  of  Faith  of  our  Church,  and  Mr.  Wesley's  Notes,  and  four 
volumes  of  Sermons.''^  Let  the  reader  compare  the  Discipline  with 
the  Prayer  Book  and  he  will  find  that  these  "Articles  of  Faith"  are 
likewise  borrowed  from  the  latter,  almost  word  for  word. 


Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons."  And  to  this 
doctrine  Mr.  Wesley  subscribed,  ex  animo.  And  as  a  Clergymen  of 
the  Church,  he  professed  it  to  the  day  of  his  death.  And  he  not  only 
professed  it — but  taught  it  In  his  sermon  on  the  "Catholic  Spirit," 
he  says  :  "I  believe  the  Episcopal  form  of  Church  Government  to  be 
Scriptural  and  Apostolical.'^'' 

Thus  it  is  proved  that  Mr.  Wesley  believed  that  God  has  appointed 
a  form  of  Church  Government,  and  further,  that  that  form  is  the  Epis- 
copal one.  Consequently,  Mr.  A.  has  contradicted  Wesley,  and 
Wesley  maintained,  as  well  as  we,  the  "Divine  Right"  of  Episcopacy, 
so  that  all  Mr.  A's  harsh  epithets  and  uncharitable  insinuations  of 
"arrogance"  "intolerance,"  &;c.  apply  to  the  "shade  of  Mr.  Wesley" 
too.  But  perhaps  he  will  say,  that  Mr.  Wesley  thought  differently 
later  in  life.  Why  then  did  he  continue  in  a  Church  which  held 
that  Episcopacy,  (consisting  of  three  distinct  Orders)  was  Scriptual? 
And  haw  could  he  consistently  use  this  language,  "I  declare  once 
more  that  I  live  and  die  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England;  and 
that  none  who  regard  my  judgment  or  advice,  will  ever  separate 
from  it,^^  which  he  published  in  the  "Arminian  Magazine"  for 
April,  1790,  only  a  kw  months  before  his  death.  Again,his  letter  to  Mr. 
Asbury  (see  p.  4  J  evidently  implies,  tliat  if  his  faith  in  the  "Divine 
Right  of  Bishops"  failed  at  the  moment  of  his  alleged  Ordination  of 
Coke,  it  had  returned  in  full  vigor  —for  he  writes  thus  :  "One  instance 
of  this  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great  concern.  How  ca7i  you, 
how  dare  you,  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  Bishop?''^  "For  my 
sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this.'''' 
Here  it  will  be  said  that  Mr.  Wesley  objected  only  to  the  name  of 
Bishop.  But  this  is  utterly  improbable.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  a  mere  name  would  have  called  foi'th  such  a  solemn  and  earnest 
protest.  Besides,  if  Wesley  was  still  of  the  opinion  that  "Bishops 
and  Presbyters  were  the  same  order,"  as  he  had  stated  in  the 
document  authorizing  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  act  as  Superinten- 
dents— he  certainly  would  not  have  rebuked  him,  for  calling  himself 
what  he  really  was,  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  own  admissions. 
The  only  ground  upon  which  Mr.  Wesley  could  have  reproved 
Asbury  with  so  much  severity  was,  that  he  did  not  possess  the  rank 
and  authority  of  a  Bishop.  While  at  the  same  time  I  admit  that 
that  ground  is  inconsistent  with  Mr.  Wesley's  profession,  that  he  had 
been  convinced  by  King's  book*  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  were 
one  order,  but  this  profession  also  is  inconsistent  with  his  position  as 
a  Clergyman  of  the  Church,  and  with  his  views,  as  set  forth  in 
his  sermons  and  addresses,  both  before  and  after  the  alleged 
Ordination. 


'*  This  work  was  written  by  Sir  Peter  King,  when  about  22  years 
of  age  !  Mr.  Slater  wrote  a  reply  to  it,  which  was  so  complete  a 
refutation  of  its  errors  as  to  convince  Sir  Peter  himself.  And  when 
he  became  Lord  Chancellor,  he  presented  Mr.  Slater  a  very  desirable 
benefice. 


83 

I  know  of  but  one  way  to  harnnonize  all  these  conflictincr  d(  cu-- 
ments,  professions,  actions,  &c.,  which  is  by  supposing  that  Wesley 
hastily  yielded  to  the  solicitations  of  Coke  and  others,  in  opposition 
to  his  deliberate  convictions.  Here  let  the  reader  turn  back  to  Dr. 
Coke's  letter  to  Wesley,  (p.  5,)  and  Coke's  letter  to  Bishop  White, 
in  which  he  thus  remarks: — "He  (Wesley)  he'mg  pressed  by  our 
friends  on  this  side  of  the  water  for  Ministers  to  administer  the 
Sacraments,  *  *  *  *  went  further^  I  am  sure,  than  he  ivnulcl 
have  gone,  if  he  had  foreseen  some  events  which  followed.     And 

THIS  I  AM  CERTAIN  OF THAT  HE  IS  NOW  SORRY  FOR  THE  SEPARA- 
TION." And  in  this  letter  Dr.  Coke  also  asserts  that  Wesley  "did  not 
intend,  I  think,  that  an  entire  separation  should  take  place."  Surely 
Dr.  Coke  must  have  understood  Mr.  Wesley's  intention.  And  he 
tells  us  that  Wesley  "did  not  intend  an  entire  separation  should  take 
place,"  And  yet  Mr.  A.  accuses  the  author  of  "Tract  No.  4,''  of 
"false-witness"  and  "slander,"  for  having  maintained  the  same 
opinion ! 

The  reader  has  now  seen  that  Mr.  Wesley  believed  and  taufht  the 
Scripturalness  of  Episcopacy — that  his  dying  advise*  to  the  Metho- 
dists was  that  they  should  never  leave  the  Church — that  (Dr.  Coke 
being  witness)  he  did  not  intend  an  "entire  separation" — that  he 
"went  further  then  he  would  have  gone,  if  he  had  forseen  some 
events  which  followed" — that  he  was  afterward  "  sorry  for  the 
separation,"  and  that  Dr.  Coke  likewise  repented  of  the  proceedurCy 
and  repeatedly  sought  re-ordination  for  himself,  and  for  those  whom 
he  had  undertaken  to  ordain. 

The  question  may  now  be  asked  why  did  they  separate-^ — or  rather,, 
why  do  the  Methodists  of  the  present  day  persist  in  the  separation? 
Is  there  no  sin  in  schism  ?  Did  not  our  Lord  repeatedly  pray  (John 
17th  ch.)  that  his  Disciples  might  be  one,  as  a  proof  of  his  Divine 
Mission?  Says  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans,  (chap.  16,  v.  17, 18,)  "Now 
I  beseech  you  brethern,  mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  offen- 
ces contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned  ;  and  avoid  them. 
For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  their 
own  belly  ;  and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches  deceive  the  hearts  of 
the  simple."  Again,  with  similar  earnestness — "Now  1  beseech  you, 
brethren,  by  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the 
same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you."  (1  Cor,  ch. 
1,  v.  10,)  "For  whereas,  there  is  among  you  envying,  strife  and 
divisions  ;  are  ye  not  carnal  and  walk  as  men?  For  while  one  saiih 
I  am  of  Paul,  and  another,  I  am  of  ApoUos ;  are  ye  not  carnal?"" 
(1  Cor.  ch.  2,  V.  4.)  In  making  these  quotations,  I  do  not  wish 
to  insinuate  that  the  Methodists  in  separating  from  the  Church,  were 
actuated  by  bad  motives — on  the  contrary,  I  believe  they  were  sincere 
and  upright  in  their  designs — but  only  to  show  that  the  word  of 
God   forbid   divisions.      Dpon  this   point,   a   late  number   of  the 

*This  advice  has  within  the  last  few  years  been  disregared  by  the 
Methodists  in  England,  too. 


Methodist  Christian  Advocate,  takes  the  true  Scriptural  ground. 
The  "Senior  editor,"  (remonstrating  with  those  who  have  recently 
withdrawn  from  the  Methodist  Society,  and  formed  another  sect, 
says  :  "  Such  an  act  (separation)  is  always  either  a  duty  or  a  sin.  It 
is  a  duty  when  we  are  required  to  believe  what  we  think  to  be  untrue, 
or  to  do  what  we  believe  to  be  sin,  as  a  condition  of  membership; 
and  it  is  a  sin  to  do  so,  for  any  lighter  reason"*  Did  the  Church 
require  such  a  "condition  of  membership  ?"  Wesley  is  the  witness 
that  it  did  not.  And  here,  we  might  easily  furnish  many  proofs 
from  his  writings,  but  the  one  solemn  declaration  already  given  is 
sufficient:  '■'I declare  once  more  that  I  live  and  die  a  member  of 
the  Church  of  England;  and  that  none  who  regard  my  judgment 
or  advice  ivill  ever  separate  from  it  "  Fletcher,  who  is  also  high 
authority  with  our  Methodist  brethren,  is  another  witness — for  he, 
too,  lived  and  died  in  the  Church.  Wesley  was  a  Clergyman  of 
the  Church  for  more  than  half  a  century,  and  died  in  its  bosom; 
beseeching  his  followers  never  to  forsake  it.  Therefore,  there 
could  have  been  no  such  "condition  of  membership"  in  his  day. 
And  there  have  been  no  other  terms  of  communion  imposed  by  the 
Church  since ;  they  are  precisely  the  same  now,  as  when  Wesley 
published  the  above  declaration.  According,  then,  to  the  principle 
laid  down  by  the  editor  of  the  Methodist  Advocate,  and  the  testimony 
and  conduct  of  Wesley,  there  was  no  cause  sufficient  to  justify  a 
separation.  And  if  so,  is  it  right  to  persist  in  that  separation  ?  Is 
it  not  an  utter  disregard  of  the  dying  wishes  of  Wesley — and  of  the 
solemn  prohibitions  of  the  Bible?  I  freely  admit  that  Methodtism 
has  done  much  good.  But  did  it  not  do  as  much  good  when  con- 
nected with  the  Church  ?  Might  it  not  have  done  much  more  if  they 
had  continued  with  us  ?t  Until  they  prove  the  contrary  (which  is 
impossible,)  I  see  not  how  they  can  be  satisfied  with  this  mode  of 
reasoning,  admitting  it  to  be  legitimate.  Wesley  always  considered  it 
the  "  peculiar  glory"  of  Methodism,  that  it  produced  no  schism,  as 
other  systems  had  done.  "This  is  a  new  thing  in  the  world,"  says 
he  :  "  this  is  the  peculiar  glory  of  the  people  called  Methodists.  In 
spite  of  all  manner  of  temptations,  they  will  not  separate  from  the 
Church.  What  many, so  earnestly  covet,  they  abhor:  they  will 
not  be  a  distinct  body.'    (Vol.  7,  p,  320,  21.) 

*  Wesley  takes  the  same  ground  in  opposition  to  those  who 
wished  to  leave  the  Church — See  his  Sermon  "On  Schism." 

t  At  the  time  of  Wesley's  death,  the  Methodists  in  the  British 
Dominions,  (who  were  still  in  the  Church)  amounted  to  76,968 — 
whereas,  in  the  United  States,  at  the  same  pariod,  and  after  they  had 
been  separated  from  the  Church  seven  years,  there  were  but  57,621. 
Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  (vol.  2,  p.  409.)  Since  Wesley's  death, 
the  Methodists  of  England  have  also  separated  from  the  Church — 
and  a  year  or  two  ago  the  annual  report  showed  a  decrease  of  more 
than  2000. 

Again — says  he,  "  When  the  great  Reformation  began,  what  moun 
3* 


34 

tainous  offences  lay  in  the  way  of  even  the  sincere  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome !  They  saw  such  failings  in  those  great  men, 
Luther  and  Calvin.  The  grand  stumbling  block  of  all  was  their 
open,  avowed  separation  from  the  Church." 

"  The  same  occasion  (in  England)  of  offence  was  given  by  the 
Presbyterians  and  Independents  ;  for  they  also  spent  great  part  of 
their  time  and  strength  concerning  the  circumstantials  of  religion  ; 
and,  for  the  sake  of  these,  separated  from  the  Church. 

"  How  wide  then  is  the  difference  between  our  case  and  the  case 
of  any  of  those  that  are  above  mentioned  !  They  avowedly  separated 
from  the  Church:  we  utterly  disavow  any  such  design.  They 
severally,  and  almost  continually,  inveighed  against  the  Doctrines 
and  Discipline  of  the  Church  they  left;  we  approve  both  the 
Doctrine  and  Biscipilne  of  our  Church.  (He  'speaks  to  a  member 
of  the  Church  of  England.)  They  spent  a  great  part  of  their  time  and 
strength  in  contending  about  externals  and  circumstantials:  we  agree 
with  you  in  both.  We  were  born  and  bred  up  in  your  own  Church, 
and  desrre  to  die  therein." — Farther  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason  and 
Religion^  part  3,v,  ^p.  171." 

But  alas  !  Their  "peculiar  glory"  has  departed.  They  have  long 
ago  deserted  the  mother  that  gave  them  birth !  And  has  not  the 
result  proved  the  truth  of  "Wesley's  declarations?  Among  other  reasons 
which  he  assigned  against  separating  from  the  Church  are  these: 
"God  has,  since  the  Reformation,  raised  up  from  time  to  time,  many 
witnesses  of  pure  Religion.  But  if,  upon  any  provocation  or  consi- 
deration whatever,  they  separated,  and  founded  distinct  parties,  their 
influence  was  more  and  more  confined:  they  grew  less  and  less 
useful  to  others,  and  generally  lost  the  spirit  of  religion  themselves, 
in  the  spirit  of  controversy.  Because,  we  have  many  instances  of 
this,  even  now  before  our  eyes.  Many  have,  in  our  memory,  left  the 
Church,  and  formed  themselves  into  distinct  bodies.  And  certainly 
some  of  them,  from  a  real  persuasion  that  they  should  do  God  more 
service.  But  have  any  separated  themselves  and  prospered  ?  Have 
they  been  either  more  holy,  or  more  useful  than  they  were  before  ?" 
I  know  that  the  Methodists  have  increased  in  numbers.  But  have 
not  "divisions"  increased  in  proportion?  An  English  author  states 
that  in  England,  "  the  Methodists  are  subdivided  into  an  immense 
variety  of  sects — the  chief  are  Wesleyans,  AVhitfieldians,  Ranters, 
Brianites,  Protestant  Methodists,  Tent  Methodists,  Independent 
Methodists  and  Kilhamites,"  Here,  then,  are  named  e\g\\i  principal 
divisions  :  how  many  subdivisions  make  up  the  "  immense  variety," 
I  know  not.*  In  this  country,  Methodism  is  much  younger — but 
liere  too,  division  has  followed  multiplication  at  a  fearful  rate. 

After  Mr.  Asbury  had  succeeded  in  healing  the  first  schism  by 
persuading   the   preachers  to   renounce  their   pretended   power   to 

*  According  to  the  statistics  of  last  year,  or  the  year  before,  Wes- 
leyanism  in  England,  was  on  the  wane.  "  The  Watchman,"  its 
organ,  stated,  "  that  in  the  Home  Stations,  the  decrease  this  year, 
has  been  2065."     Another  English  paper  states,  "  during  the  last 


95 

administer  the  Sacraments,  and  wait  until  they  had  received  Presby- 
terian Ordination  through  Mr.  Wesley,  the  first  troublesome  spirit 
who  arose  was  Mr.    William  Hammett,  of  Charleston,  S.  C,,  who 
in  1785,  became  the  founder  of  a  separate  sect  called  ^'"Primitive 
Methodists:'     In   1792,  Mr.  James   O'Kelly,  of  Virginia,  started 
another,  with  greater   prospects  of  success,   called    "  Republican 
Methodists:''     Next  came  Mr.  Pliney  Brett,  of  Massachusetts,  who 
in  1813,  became  the  leader   of  the   ''^Reformed  Methodists:^     In 
1827,  commenced   another   offshoot,  denominated  the   ''-Methodist 
Protestants:''  headed  by  Messrs.  McCaine,  Jennings,  Shinn,  and 
others  ;  which  appears  to  be  increasing,     Lastly,  in  1842,  Messrs, 
Sutherland,  Scott  and  Co.,  laid  the  foundation  of  a  new  body  called 
"  TVesleyan  Methodists:''   which  held   a  Convention  recently    at 
Utica,   N.  Y.,  attended  by  about  one  hundred  Preachers,  and   one 
hundred  and  seventy-five  lay  delegates  from  ten  States.     With  this 
body,  it  is  said  that  from  six  to  eight  hundred  members,  with  one 
hundred  and  fifty  Preachers,  have  united,  having  seceded  from  the 
Old  Methodists.     And  according  to  a  late  number  of  the  Christian 
Advocate,  a  great  disturbance  was  caused  among  the  Preachers  at  a 
recent   Conference  in   New  England,   upon  the  absurd   dream  of 
Millerism.     A  number  of  the  Preachers  maintained,  not  only  that 
Miller's  theory  is  in  the  Bible,  but  worse  still — that  God  had  ac- 
tually revealed  it  to  them  by  direct  inspiration.     Judging  of  the 
future  by  the  past,  and  by  present  indications,  I  cannot  doubt  that  the 
whole  'connection'  will  ere  long  split  into  numberless  fragments.   In- 
deed, the  Methodists  themselves  are  looking  to  the  future  withdeadful 
apprehensions.   A  late  number  of  the  Richmond  Christian  Advocate, 
(Methodist  paper)  says  :  "In  many  respects,  and  for  many  reasons, 
the  next  General  Conference  will    be  the  most  important  one,  to 
the  peace,  unity,  and  prosperity  of  the  Church,  that  has  ever  assem- 
bled.    A  variety  of  circumstances,  long  passing  before  our  mind,  and 
constantly  impressing  us,  have  united  to  work  out  this  conviction. 
For  months  we  have  been  silent  spectators  of  scenes,  and  plans, 
and  propositions,  rife  with  the  distraction  of  all  that  is  excellent  or 
valuable  in  our  prized,  and  heretofore  blessed  Ecclesiastial  Union. 
We  write  to  forewarn  our  brethren,  to  show  them  the  gathering  of  the 
elements,  the  coming  on  of  the  storm,  before  they  are  called  to  con- 
template the  disasters  of  its  spent  fury." 

year  eight  Methodists  Preachers  at  Bolton,  Lancashire,  have  been 
received  into  communion  with  the  Church.  A  building  in  Bolton, 
late  a  Preai^hing-house  of  New  Methodists,  is  now  a  Licensed  Chapel^ 
and  Mr.  Berry,  the  late  Preacher,  is  now  the  Rev.  Thomas  Berry  ; 
he,  and  n<  .irly  all  his  Congregation,  having  relinquished  dissent. 
His  coadj'.i'or  had  previously  determined  to  leave  the  connection  and 
go  to  the  University.  Six  Local  Preachers,  all  the  Trustees,  who 
had  been  dissatisfied  for  some  time,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
Teachers  and  Scholars,  are  now  united  to  the  Church,  under  their 
former  Teacher,  now  an  Ordained  Minister  of  Christ,  and  the 
building  will  hereafter  be  Consecrated,  having  been  conveyed  for 
that  purpose." 


In  England,  before  the  death  of  Wesley,  the  good  fruits  of  Me- 
thodism were  marred  by  much  evil.  Wesley  himself  furnishes- 
testimony  in  this  point.  Speaking  of  Methodistism,  he  says  :  ''It 
brought  forth  error  in  ten  thousand  shapcsr  turning  many  of  the 
simple  out  of  the  way.  It  brought  forth  enthusiasm,  imagi- 
nary  inspiration,  ascribing  to  the  all-wise  Qod  all  the  wild ^ 
aOs'f'rdj  self-inconsistent  dreams  of  an  heated  imagination.  It 
brought  forth  pride,  robbing  the  Giver  of  every  good  gift  of  the 
honor  due  to  His  name,.  It  brouglit  forth  prejudice,  evil-surmising, 
censoriousness,  judging  and  condemning  one  another;  all  totally 
subversive  of  that  brotherly  love  vi^hich  is  the  very  badge  of  the 
Christian  profession ;  without  which  whosoever  liveth  is  counted, 
dead  before  God.  It  brought  foEth  anger,  hatred,  malice,  revenge,  and 
every  evil  word  and  work  ;  all  direful  fruits,  not  of  the  Holy  Spirit^, 
but  of  the  bottomless  pit,^* — Wesley's  Sermons,  VoL  VI.,  p.  66.  See 
also  Bis^hop  Manl's  Bampton  Lectures,/).  310,  311.  Sixth  edition." 
(Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  a,  p,  383.)  Here  I  repeat,  that  II 
have  no  wish  to  wound  the  feelings  of  our  Methodist  brethren.  From, 
the  moment  they  separated  from  the  Church  to  the  present  time,  the^ 
propriety  and  expediency  of  the  separation  have  been  legitimate  and. 
important  subjects  of  discussion.  Mr.  A.  and  others  may  attempt 
to  smother  such  discussion  by  terming  it  the  "mad  cry  of  persecu- 
tion," biat  in  vain.  The  only  weapons  which  Churchmen  wield  or 
wish  to  wield  are  Light  and  Truth.  And  these  they  will  never  cease^ 
to  wieldl  We  well  know  that  there  are  thousands  among  the 
Methodists  who  only  require  a  little  more  information  upon  this 
point  to  lead  them  to  return  to  the  fold  from  whieh  they  have  un- 
consciously  strayed.  It  is  for  their  benefit,  and  from  Christian  love, 
that  we  endeavourto  diffuse  through  every  community  the  knowledge 
which  is  so  much  needed;.  So  far  from  being  enemies  to  the 
Methodists  (as  Mr.  A.  \ery  unfairly  rcrpresents  us,)  we  are  their 
friends— we  seek  to  do  them  good — we  seek  to  bring  them  back  to 
the  good  "old  path"  in  which  Wesley,  Whitfield  and  Fletcher 
walked.  When  we  consider  the  numberless  divisions,  and  other 
"direful  evils"  which  haiJe  resulted  from  the  first  separation,  we 
canwot  but  ques^on  its  propriety — because,  (if  there  were  no  other 
reason,)  there  are  no  good  results  to  counterbalance  these  evils — for 
the  good  which  has  been  done,  would  have  been  done  (and  probably 
muidi  miore)  without  separatton. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Testimony  of  English  Divines  Examined — They  held  the  ^^Divinf 

Right'*''  of  Episcopacy — Their  Opinions ^  whatever  they  were,  are- 

to  be  Judged  by  Scripture  and  Ancient  Authors, 

I  will  now  examine  the  testimony  which  Mr.  A.  claims  against 

Episcopacy  from  English  Divines.     He  first  gives  us  an  extract  from 

WickUffe — thouglfc,  as  usual,  without  rejference— which  in  substances. 


37 

is  only  this,  that  in  "the  time  of  St.  Paul,  two  Orders  (a  Priest  and 
iDeacon)  were  sufficient,  and  that,  then.  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were 
snames  of  the  same  office."  The  latter  sentence  is  irrelevant — as  it 
■is  not  disputed.  The  former  is  ambiguous.  It  may  be  fairly  inter- 
ipreted,  so  as  to  harmonise  with  Episcopacy.  Wickliffe  probably 
means  that  two  Orders  besides  the  Apostles  were  at  first  sufficient. 
M  so,  then  he  is  not  against  us — l^ut  if  not,  then  he  contradicts  the 
New  Testament — -every  reader  of  which  must  know  that  the  Apostles, 
3iot  only  ordained  those  called  Presbyters,  but,  also,  exercised  a 
superintendence  over  them.  He  contradicts  the  Fathers  who  lived  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles  and  immediately  after — and  he  contradicts 
^is  own  Church.  Wickliffe  believed  in  purgatory,  and  many  other 
things  which  are  nowrejected.  But  here  letme  remind  the  reader  that 
the  question  is  respecting  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  the  First 
Age,  and  therefore,  it  is  to  be  decided  by  the  New  Testament,  and 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  men  who  lived  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  or  soon  after.  Consequently  that  the  o|}inions  of  modern 
writers  possess  no  authority.  Wickliffe  did  not  live  until  the 
fourteenth  century,  and  therefore,  is  not  a  competemt  witness. 

Mr.  A.  next  gives  an  extract  from  Burnet's  History  of  the  Re- 
formation. That  history-  embraces  three  large  volumes,  and  yet  Mr. 
A,  has  given  (as  usual)  ro  reference  !  When  a  writer  attempts  to  prove 
■a  position  by  authorities,  surely  he  should  direct  his  reader  where  to 
ifind  his  quotations.  Otherwise,  it  amounts  to  no  more  than  his 
own  assertion.  And  he  might  as  well  content  himself  with  a  simple 
affirmation  or  denial  of  the  proposition  discussed.  Of  course,  Mr. 
A  would  NOT  iNTENiiONALLY  misrepresent  a  writer,  but  every  man 
is  liable  to  make  mistakes :  besides,  persons  often  meet  with  extracts 
at  second  hand,  which  they  press  into  their  service,  supposing  them 
to  be  accurate.  Mr.  A.  asserts  that  Burnet  gives  an  account  of  a 
convocation,  "  In  which  near  forty  of  the  principal  Bishops,  and 
Clergymen  of  England,  on  considering  this  very  subject,  declare 
that  Bishops,  and  Presbyters  or  Elders,  are  the  same  office."  *'  That 
their  power,  authority  and  commission  under  Christ,  are  equal. 
That  they  have  equal  power  and  authority  to  Ordain  and  con- 
secrate others  in  the  same  room,  order  and  office,  whereunto  they  be 
"Called  and  admitted  themselves."  After  a  considerable  research,  I 
found  the  "  account"  referred  to.  But  the  statement  of  Mr.  A.  is 
ESSENTIALLY  INACCURATE.  In  the  first  placc,  these  Divines  were 
not  engaged  in  '^considering  this  very  subject" — (whether  there  is 
an  equality  between  Presbyter  and  Bishop)  but  the  authority  and 
•duties  of  the  Ministry  in  general.  Burnet  gives  the  whole  of  the 
document  containing  the  declaration  set  forth  by  these  Divines.  It 
is  aimed  against  the  assumption  of  the  power  of  the  sword  by  the 
Pope,  and  the  numerous  inferior  Orders,  as  sub-Deacon,  Lecter,  &c. 
I  will  here  quote  the  first  paragraph  of  this  document  entire  :  "As 
touching  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Orders,  we  will,  that  all  Bishops 
and  Preachers  shall  instruct,  and  teach  our  people,  committed  by  us, 
-unto  their  spiritual   charge. — First,  how,   that  Christ  and    his 


38 

Apostles  did  institute  and  ordain  in  the  New  Testament :  that  besides 
the   civil  powers  and  governance  of  Kings  and  Princes,  which  is 
called  in   Scripture  potestas  gladii,  the  power  of  the   sword,    there 
should  be  also  continually  in  the  Churcii  militant,  certain  other 
MINISTERS  OR  OFFICERS,  which  should  havo  spiritual  power,  au- 
thority, AND  COMMISSION  UNDER  Christ,  to  prcach  and  teach  the 
word  of  God  unto  his  people,  and  to  dispense  and  administer  the 
Sacraments  of  God  unto  them,  and  by  the  same  to  confer  and  give 
the  Grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  consecrate  the  blessed  body  of  Christ 
in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  to  loose  and  absolve  from  sin,  all  per- 
sons which  be  truly  penitent  and  sorry  for  the  same  ;  to  bind  and 
excommunicate  such  as   be  guilty  in  manifest  crimes  and  sins,  and 
will  not  amend  their  defaults ;  to  order  and  consecrate  others 
IN  the  same  room,  order  and  office  whreeunto  they  be  called 
AND  admitted  THEMSELVES  ;  aud  finally,  to  feed  Christ's   people 
like  Pastors  and  Rectors,  as  the  Apostles   calleth  them,  with  their 
wholesome  doctrine,  and  by  their  continual  exhortations  and  moni- 
tions to  redeem  them  from  sin  and  iniquity,  so  much  as  in  them 
lieth ;  and  to  bring  them  unto  the  perfect  knowledge,  and  perfect 
love,  and  dread  of  God,  and  unto  the  perfect  charity  of  their  neigh- 
bours."    (Burnet's   History   of  Reformation,  part   1,   Addend,    to 
Record,  p.  321.)     Let  the  reader  compare  this  quotation  with  Mr. 
A's  statement,  and  he  will  perceive  that  the  words  in  small  caps^ 
are  all  that  Mr.  A.  has  given;  consequently,  that  his  extracts  are 
garbled.     Those  few  words  have  been  cut  out,  here  and  there,  from 
this  large  paragraph,  and  placed  by  the  side  of  words  with  which 
they   have   no  connection,  and  which  are  found  in  no  part  of  the 
document !    The  reader  sees   for   himself  that  the  portion  of  the 
document  given  above,  and  in  which  only  the  words  quoted  by  Mr. 
A.  occur,  describes  the  duties,  not  of  any  particular  Order  of  Ministers, 
but  of  the  Ministry  in  general,  as  a  Divine  Institution.     And,  there- 
fore, to  represent  the  document  as  declaring  that  the  power  "to  order 
and  consecrate  others"  belongs  equally  to  Presbyters  and  Bishops,  is 
erroneous.    He  might  with  as  much  fairness  represent  it  as  ascribing 
this  power  to  the  Deacons,  since  they  are  a  part  of  the  Ministry. 
Is  this  a  candid  and  upright  course  ?     Is  it  by  such  means  that  the 
theory   of  ordination   by    Presbyters  is  to  be  maintained  ?     What 
could  be  a  stronger  proof  of  conscious  weakness,  than  a  resort  to  such 
reprehensible  and  contemptible  artifices  1 

The  only  plausible  pretence  for  the  first  part  of  Mr.  A's  statement, 
viz.  that  they  declared  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  are 
the  same  office,  is  found  in  the  latter  part  of  the  document,  which  is, 
that  the  Christian  Ministry  was  committed  by  the  Apostles,  *'to 
certain  persons  only,  that  is  to  say,  unto  Priests  or  Bishops,"  and 
that  "  in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any 
degrees  and  distinctions  in  Orders ;  but  only  of  Deacons,  or  Minis- 
ters, and  Priests,  or  Bishops."  But  another  extract  from  it,  and  a 
few  remarks  from  Burnet  will  set  this  right.  "It  was  also  ordained 
(says  the  document)  and  commanded  by  the  Apostles,  that  the 


39 

SAME  Sacrament  of  Orders  should  be  applied  and  ministered 
3Y  THE  Bishop  [not  Priest]  from  time  to  time,  unto  such  other 
persons  as  had  the  qualities,  &c."  These  extracts  being  put  to- 
gether, it  is  evident  that  these  Divines  had  adopted  a  theory  then 
very  prevalent,  that  is,  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  make  up  the 
Christian  Priesthood — the  former  possessing  superiority  in  this 
respect — as  having  the  exclusive  right  to  Ordain.  Just  as  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  is  the  model,  the  Priesthood  was  composed  of 
Priests  and  High  Priests — the  latter  possessing  certain  superior  rights. 
The  theory  is  perfectly  consistent  with  Episcopacy,  and  equally 
irreconcilable  with  Presbyterian  Ordination.  Under  the  Mosaic 
Dispensation,  the  High  Priest  was  over  all  the  other  Priesst,  and  he 
only  could  enter  the  Holy  of  Holies.  And  yet  he  is  repeatedly 
called  Priest,  (see  Ex.  29,  30  and  Neh.  7,  65.)  In  the  same  manner 
it  was  sometimes  customary  to  speak  of  the  Bishop  as  a  part  of  the 
one  Priesthood,  and  to  class  both  him  and  his  Presbyters  under  the 
same  term  of  "Priests."  A  Bishop  is  a  Priest,  but  a  Priest  is  not 
necessarily  a  Bishop — the  latter  being  the  specific  title  of  those  Priests 
who  have  inherited  from  the  Aposdes  the  power  of  Ordination  and 
Government. 

Burnet  gives  the  following  explanation :  Says  he,  '*  It  was  then 
[in  the  Primitive  times]  thought  enough,  that  a  Bishop  was  to  be 
dedicated  to  his  function  by  a  new  inposition  of  hands,  and  that 
several  offices  could  not  be  performed  without  Bishops,  such  as 
Ordination,  Confirmation,  &c.,  but  they  did  not  refine  in  these 
matters,  so  much  as  to  inquire  whether  Bishops  and  Priests  differed 
in  Order  and  Office,  or  only  in  Degree."  He  says  in  later  times,  the 
Schoolmen  and  Canonists,  though  from  different  motives,  "  studied 
to  make  Bishops  and  Priests  seem  very  near  one  another.''  "  The 
Schoolmen  having  set  up  the  grand  mystery  of  Transubstantiation," 
wished  to  exalt  the  Priests,  as  much  as  possible,  seeing  they  turned 
the  bread  and  wine  (in  the  Sacrament)  into  God.  And  that  the  Ca- 
nonists, endeavoured  to  depress  the  Bishops,  in  order  to  elevate  the 
Popes.  Hence  it  became  common  to  speak  of  Bishops  and  Priests 
as  the  same  office.  Burnet  adds,  "  It  is  no  wonder  if  at  this  time  [of  the 
Reformation]  the  Clergy  of  this  Church,  the  greatest  part  of  them 
BEING  still  leavened  with  the  old  superstition,  and  the  rest  of  them 
not  having  enough  of  spare  time  to  examine  lesser  matters,  retained 
still  the  former  phrases  in  this  particular.  "For  these  [notions  of  the 
Schoolmen]  are  the  very  dregs  of  Popery,  the  one  raising  the  Priests 
higher,  for  the  sake  of  Transubstantiation,  the  other  pulling  the 
Bishops  lower,  for  the  sake  of  the  Popes' Supremacy."  (Hist,  of 
Ref.  Part,  4  page  366.)  When  it  is  remembered  that  some  of  these 
Divines,  being  Bishops,  had  been  Consecrated,  or  in  other  words 
been  Ordained,  to  a  higher  rank  after  they  had  received  the  Priest- 
hood, and  that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  Ordaining  other  Priests  to  the 
same  rank,  it  must  be  evident  they  could  not  have  intended  to  assert 
that  all  Priests  have  the  right  to  Ordain  by  virtue  of  their  second 
or  Priestly  ordination.     And  if  they  did  not  mean  that,  the  document 


40 

contains  nothing  to  Mr.  A's.  purpose.  But  even  supposing  that  Mr. 
A.  has  correctly  represented  their  opinions  on  this  point,  it  avails^ 
nothing — they  are  but  opinions.  All  the  proof  in  this  controversy 
must  be  drawn  from  the  New  Testament,  and  patristic  writings. 
Besides,  of  all  modern  Divines  these  were  at  that  time*  least 
qualified  to  form  a  correct  judgment — for  the  reason  mentioned  in 
Burnet's  explanation.  They  were  ],ust  beginning  to  emerge  from  the 
darkness  of  the  age.  Their  knowledge  of  Scripture  must  then  have 
been  comparatively  limited.  Mr.  A.  would  not  be  willing  to  take 
their  opinions,  as  set  forth  in  this  document,  upon  some  other  points. 
For  instance  they  call  "Orders"  a  Sacrament — and  not  only  call 
it  so — but  endeavor  to  ]drove  it  so  by  Scripture.  Thus  in  thi& 
matter  they  have  contradicted  the  doctrine  of  the  Prayer  Booky 
(which  was  not  completed  until  more  than  fifty  years  after)  and 
therefore,it  would  be  no  matter  of  surprise,  if,  in  their  circumstances^ 
they  had  erred  as  to  Episcopacy.  Again  :  they  declared  that  one  func- 
tion of  the  Ministry  was  "to consecrate  the  blessed  body  of  Christ, 
in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar."  Does  not  Mr.  A.  regard  these  a& 
serious  errors?  Does  he  not  believe  them  contrary  to  the  New 
Testament?  Yet  these  divines  believe  that  they  were  contained  in 
the  New  Testament.  And  if  they  misinterpieted  the  New  Testa^ 
ment  in  these  particulars,  surely  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  they 
had  misinterpreted  it  as  to  Episcopacy.  These  men  were  not  the 
founders  of  the  Church,  nor  were  they  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
lament,  consequently  their  opinions,  like  those  of  other  men, must  be 
tried  by  Scripture,  and  the  Primitive  Church. 

The  passage  from  Cranmer  (withotU  reference,  too,)  is  entirely 
irrelevant.  We  allow  all  that  it  states,  that  at  first  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  were  names  of  one  office — which  has  been  explained,  I 
trust  to  the  reader's  satisfaction.  It  is  certainly  queer  that  Mr.  A.,. 
after  stating  that  the  Prayer  Book,  which  maintains  the  three  Orders 
Jure  Divino,  proceeded  from  Cranmer,  should  aittempt  to  represent 
him  as  opposed  to  Episcopacy.  Cranmer^s  real  sentiments  may  be 
learned  from  the  following  statement  put  forth  by  his  authority  in 
1558,  in  a  Sermon  on  the  Power  of  the  Keys  :  "  The  ministration 
of  God's  word,  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  at  first  did  in- 
stitute,  WAS  derived   from  the    Apostles    unto   others  after 

THEM,  BY  IMPOSITION    OF    HANDS.  AND  GIVING    THE  HoLY  GoST,  FROM 

the  Aposules'  TIME  TO  OUR  DAYS.  And  ihis  was  the  Consecration, 
Orders  and  unction  of  the  Apostles,  whereby  they,  at  the  beginning, 
made  Bishops  and  Priests,  and  this  shall  continue  in  the  Church 
even  to  the  world^s  f  ?>d."  In  15.58-9,  the  following  eminent  Divines,. 
Sury,  Grindal,  Cox,  Elmer,  Great,  Jewell  and  Horn,  all  of  whom 
were  Bishops,  either  at  that  time  or  subsequently,  selected  to  conduct 
the  Protestant  controversy  with  the  Romanists,  maintain  this  asser- 
tion— "The  Apostles'  authority  is  derived  upon  after  ages,. 

AND     conveyed     TO    THE     BiSHOPS  THEIR     SUCCESSORS.'^        (Collier*^S 


1537  or  1538,  according  to  Burnet. 


41 

Eccles.  Hist.  2,  414,  418.)  He  next  gives  us  a  passage  from  "  The 
Bishop  of  London.'  There  have  been  a  great  many  Bishops  of 
London— yet  Mr.  A.  gives  no  name,  date,  or'reference  of  any  kind  !  ! 
I  shall  therefore  pass  it  over;  for,  upon  the  principle  before  stated, 
if  any  Bishop  of  London  ever  used  such  language,  it  proves  nothing, 
except  that  he  contradicts  the  Creed  of  his  Church  ;  and,  a  man  who 
denies  what  he  professes  to  believe,  is  unworthy  of  credence.  But 
his  last  testimony  is  the  strangest  of  all.  He  gives  us  a  passage  from 
"Bishop  Hooker!!"  No  man  of  that  name  has  ever  filled  an 
English  See  !  Quotations  from  Modern  authors,  if  accurate,  as  before 
remarked,  ;>roi;e  nothing;  but  after  such  a  blunder  as  this,  the  reader 
must  perceive  that  Mr.  A.  is  far  from  being  infallible. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Testimony  of  non-Episcopalians  in  Favor  of  Episcopacy Univer- 
sality of  Episcopacy — Statements  of  Dr.   Buchanan  and  Dr. 
Grant — Ml  the  Ancient  Churches  Episcopal. 
Now  I  will  set  before  the  reader  testimony  in  favor  of  Episcopacy 
from  writers  who  were  not  Episcopalians.     And  thoutrh  it  proves 
nothing  positively — if  the   reader  should  not  be  satisfied  with  the 
reply   which  has  been  made  to  Mr.  A's   quotations  from  modern 
author?,  it  will  at  any  rate  neutralize  any  weight  which  they  may 
possess. 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  Methodist  Commentator,  says :  "Episcopacy, 
in  the  Church  of  God,  is  of  Divine  Appointment :  and  should  be 
maintained  and  respected."  '*  Deacon,  Presbyter  and  Bishop,  ex- 
isted in  the  Apostolic  Church  ;  and  therefore  may  be  considered  of 
Divine  Origin.'''  (Notes  on  1  Tim.  3:  1,  13.)  Here  is  language 
pertinent  and  unequivocal.  Here  is  the  *'  Divine  Right  of  Bishops" 
asserted  by  the  most  learned  man  that  was  ever  connected  with 
Methodism — a  man  who  had  every  temptation  to  believe  the 
contrary. 

John  Calvin,  the  Father  of  the  Presbyterians,  says — "Thus  as  we 
have  said  that  a  three-fold  Ministry  is  commended  to  us  in  Scripture, 
in  like  manner,  whatever  the  ancient  Church  had  of  the  Ministry,  it 
distinguished  into  three  Orders  (in  tres  ordines  distinxit.)  "For 
of  the  Order  of  Presbyters,  part  were  appointed  Pastors  and  Teachers, 
the  other  part  presided  over  the  regulation  and  correction  of  conduct." 
*' Therefore,  Jerome,  where  he  speaks  of  five  Orders  in  the  Church, 
enumerates  Bishops,  Presbyters,  Deacons,  the  Believers  and  the 
Catechumens."     (Calvin's  Institutes,  Book  4,  chap.  4,  sec  1.) 

Again  :  "  Whence  the  ancient  writers  often  mention  this,  that  the 
Presbyter  differed  from  the  Bishop  in  nothing,  unless  in  his  ?iot 
possessing  the  power  of  Ordaining.'^  (lb.  sec.  15.) 

John  Le  Clerc. — "But  now  there  are  two  forms  of  Church  Go- 
vernment, of  which  the  one  is,  that  where  the  Church  acts  under  a 


42 

single  Bishop,  who  alone  has  the  right  of  Ordaining  Presbyters,  and 
the  other  inferior  Orders  of  Evangelical  Ministers :  and  the  other 
where  the  Church  is  governed  by  equal  Presbyters,  to  whom  are 
joined  from  the  people,  certain  men  of  some  prudence  and  irreproacha- 
ble conduct.  Those  who  have  read  without  prejudice  the  remains 
of  the  most  ancient  Christian  writers,  know  well  that  the  first  form 
of  Discipline,  which  is  called  Episcopal,  such  as  we  see  in  the 
southern  part  of  Great  Britain,  was  every  where  established  in  the 
very  next  age  after  the  Apostles ;  from  whence  it  is  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  it  was  of  Apostolic  constitution.  But  the  other  which 
they  call  Presbyterian,  was  instituted  iu  many  parts  of  France, 
Switzerland,  Germany  and  Holland,  by  those  who  in  the  sixteenth 
CENTURY  seceeded  from  the  Church  of  Rome." 

"Those  who  have  read  attentively  ihe  histories  of  that  age,"  con- 
tinues the  writer,  "know  perfectly  well  that  this  latter  form  of  Church 
Government  was  introduced  only  because  the  Bishops  refused  to 
grant  any  reformation  in  those  points  of  Christian  doctrine  and  manners 
which  were  complained  of  as  being  corruptions.  For  otherwise,  if 
the  Bishops  (of  the  Cliurch  of  Rome)  of  that  day  had  been  willing 
to  do  every  where,  that  which  was  shortly  afterwards  done  in 
England,  that  same  Church  Government  would  have  obtained  at 
this  day  amon^  all  who  seceeded  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
thus  innumerable  calamities  which  have  happened  from  the  con- 
fusions and  convulsions  of  Ecclesiastical  affairs,  might  have  been 
avoided.  And  a  little  farther  on  he  says,  that  "whoever  has  read 
the  writings  of  that  most  eminent  man,  Hugo  Grotius,  knows  that 
he  vehemently  applauded  the  Episcopal  Form  of  Government^  such 
as  obtained  in  England,  "  because,  when  he  had  studiously  ex- 
amined the  writings  of  Christian  antiquity,  he  found  it  to  be  the 
primeval  form."  (Jo.  Cler.  de  Eligendi  inter  dissent.  Christ, 
sent.  §  11,  12.) 

Again :  Hugo  Grotius  recommended  the  Episcopal  system  to  the 
Remonstrants  (the  Arminians)  in  Holland.  "I  advised  them,  (says 
he,)  to  select  some  amongst  themselves  for  a  more  eminent  grade,  as 
Bishops,  and  to  receive  the  imposition  of  hands  from  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Ireland,  who  is  there,  that  so  being  Ordained,  they  might 
Ordain  others"  (Grotius  de  Veritate  Religionis  Christianas  p,  310: 
Lon.  edit.  1813,)  Le  Clerc,  was  a  Minister  of  the  Dutch  Church, 
and  Grotius  was  a  Presbyterian — two  of  the  most  famous  scholars 
of  the  seventeenth  contury.*     Thus  I  have  given  the  testimony  of 

*I  here  add  that  Mosheim — the  learned  Church  Historian  of  the 
Lutheran  Persuasion,  acknowledges  that  in  the  first  century^  a  person 
presided  in  the  council  of  Presbyters  to  whom  the  name  of  Angel  and 
afterwards  that  of  a  Bishop,  was  applied.  (Eccles.  History,  1st. 
Cent,  part  2,  ch.  2.)  In  the  Book  of  Revelation,  the  Bishop  of 
Ephesus,  Sardis,  &c.,  are  addressed  under  the  tide  of  Angel.  (Rev. 
2  and  3,  chs.)  In  the  Book  of  Acts  (chap.  20,)  we  learn  that  there 
were  divers  "Elders"  at  Ephesus.     And  therefore  when  St.  John 


43 

four  of  the  most  celebrated  non-Episcopalians  that  have  ever  lived. 
I  have  also  giverx  ample  references  to  the  passages  quoted,  which  Mr, 
A.^has  not  done  in  a  single  instance.  I  see  not  how  any  one  can  re- 
sist such  testimony,  who  is  governed,  at  all,  by  modern  authorities. 
I  would  especially  and  respectfully  commend  to  the  notice  of  our 
Methodist  brethren,  with  whom  Dr.  Clarke  is  high  authority,  the 
extracts  from  his  learned  Commentary. 

I  have  now  furnished  the  most  decisive  testimony  from  the  earliest 
Christian  writers,  (some  of  whom  were  cotemporary  with  the  Apos- 
tles,) and  from  some  of  the  highest  authorities  among  non-Episcopa- 
lians, that  Episcopacy  is  Apostolical   and  Divine.     As  we  descend 
from  the  third  century  to  modern  times,  the   proofs  of  its  existence 
co-extensive  with  Christianity,  multiply  with  the  increase  of  the  re- 
cords  and  documents   of  Ecclesiastical  history.     The   writings   of 
ancient  authors,  and  the  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Councils,  afibrd 
an  amount  of  evidence  which  even  the  most  sceptical  or  most  preju- 
diced cannot  resist.     And  hence  our  ablest  opponents  in  this  contro- 
versy are  compelled  to  admit  that  Episcopacy  has   prevailed  at  least 
ever  since  the  second  or  third  century.     And  yet  from  that  very  ad- 
mission, it  follows  to  a  moral  certainty,  that  it  is  Apostolical.     At  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  there  must  have  been  many  Christians 
who  had  conversed  with  those    who  had   lived  within  the  Apostolic 
age.     Consequently  every  one  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  con- 
stitution and  usages  of  the  Apostolic  Church — as  much  so  as  we  are 
with  the  condition  of  the  American  Colonies  previous  to  the  Revolu- 
tion.    And  if  Presbyters  at  first  possessed  the  Ordaining  power,  they 
must  have  been   deprived  of  it  within,  or  very   nearly  within,  the 
memory  of  those  then  living.     And  as  it  would  have  been  an  extra- 
ordinary change,   and  a   matter  of  great  interest,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  some  writer  would  have  mentioned  it  :  and  yet  all   the 
ancient  writers  are   wholly  silent — not  one  mentions,  or  alludes  to, 
such  a  change  !*     Consequently,  when   we   ask  our  opponents  for 
testimony  that  such  a  change  occurred,  they  adduce  some  ambiguous 
or  irrelevent  passage,  (such  as  Mr.  A.  quoted  from   Jerome,)  while 
we  can   place  against  it  half  a  dozen  from   the  same  writer,  clearly 
and  fully  sustaining  the  Divine  Origin  of  Episcopacy.    And  when  we 
ask  them  to  specify  the  date  of  this   great  change,  (which  every  one 
must  have  known,  if  it  had  occurred,)  we  have  this  most  satisfactory 
answer:  "  Some  time  in  the  second  or  third   century"  ! !  !     Again  : 
Men,  all  the  world  over,  and  in  every  age,  are  exceedingly  tenacious 

is  commanded  to  write  unto  the  Angel  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus 
(Rev,  2,)  the  term  must  designate  some  one  superior  officer,  such  as 
a  Bishop — so  the  ancient  Fathers  declares.  Some  suppose,  and  very 
reasonably,  that  those  who  inherited  the  ordaining  commission  from 
the  Apostles  were  for  a  while  denominated  Angels. 

*  I  have  already  shown  that  the  change  mentioned  in  the  quotation 
from  Jerome,  occurred  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  by  their 
authority, 


44 

of  their  rights.  To  resign  authority  and  power,  to  which  they  have 
been  accustomed,  is  what  they  will  not  quietly  and  tamely  consent 
to.  At  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  there  must  have  an  immense 
number  of  Presbyters  scattered  nearly  all  over  the  then  known  world 
— all  of  whom,  according  to  the  theory  of  our  opponents,  possessed 
the  high  and  inestimable  right  of  conferring  Orders.  And  yet,  in 
the  course  of  one  century  after,  they  resign  ihat  right,  although  a 
most  precious  inheritance  received  from  the  inspired  Apostles,  with 
the  solemn  injunction  to  hold  it  fast,  and  exercise  it  "  until  the  ap- 
pearing of  Jesus  Christ" — I  say,  they  resign  that  right  without  a 
struggle,  and  without  a  murmur,  and  quietly  submit  to  the  domination 
of  a  few  ambitious  usurpers  ! !  1  Can  any  one  believe  this  ?  Here 
is  a  question,  not  to  "  mathematicians,"  but  to  all  who  are  in  the 
smallest  degree  acquainted  with  history  and  human  nature — "  How 
much  faith  does  it  require  to  be"  no  *'  Churchman"  ?*  History 
faithfully  records  the  encroachments  of  Tyrants  in  every  age,  whether 
Civil  or  Ecclesiastical,  and  the  mighty  resistance  which  they  called 
forth  ;  but  here  hundreds  of  men,  in  almost  every  part  of  the  world, 
are  deprived  of  a  Divine  Right  and  most  sacred  depositum,  and  aba- 
sed to  a  lower  grade,  and  yet  History  says  not  a  word  respecting  the 
tremendous  revolution — records  not  the  protest — not  even  the  lamen- 
tation^ of  one  of  these  many  deeply  injured  men  !  Surely  it  must 
be  obvious  to  any  candid  mind,  that  if  such  a  change  had  occurred, 
there  would  be  some  notice  of  it  in  History — and  since  there  is  no 
such  notice,  it  is  morally  certain  that  no  such  change  occurred — that 
the  regimen  of  the  third  century  was  the  same  as  the  Apostles  instituted. 
Episcopacy  now,  as  ever,  is  co-extensive  with  the  Christian 
religion.  All  the  oldest  and  largest  Churches  are  Episcopal ;  and  in 
remote  and  secluded  portions  of  the  earth,  modern  travellers  have 
discovered  ancient  Churches,  with  their  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons. Thus,  on  the  coast  of  Malabar,  in  the  south  of  India,  Dr. 
Buchanan  found  multitudes  of  Episcopalians,  who  had  from  the  earli- 

*  '*  When  (says  Chillingworth,  the  great  champion  of  Protestant- 
ism,) I  shall  see  all  the  Democracies  and  Aristocracies  in  the  world 
lie  down  and  sleep,  and  awake  into  Monarchies,  then  will  I  begin  to 
believe,  that  Presbyterial  Government,  having  continued  in  the  Church 
during  the  Apostles'  times,  should  presently  after  (against  the  Apos- 
tles' doctrine  and  the  will  of  Christ)  be  whirled  about,  like  a  scene 
in  a  masque,  and  transformed  into  Episcopacy.  In  the  meantime, 
while  these  things  remain  thus  incredible,  and  in  human  reason  im- 
possible, I  hope  I  shall  have  leave  to  conclude  thus  :  Episcopal 
government  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  universally  received  in  the 
Church  presently  after  the  Apostles'  times.  Between  the  Apostles' 
times  and  this  *'  presently  after,"  there  was  not  time  enough /or,  nor 
possibility  of,  so  great  an  alteration.  *  *  *  *  * 
And  therefore  there  was  no  such  alteration  as  is  pretended  ;  and 
therefore  Episcopacy,  being  confessed  to  be  so  ancient  and  Catholic, 
must  be  granted  also  to  be  Apostolic." 


45 

est  times  been  cut  off  from  all  intercourse  with  other  parts  of  Chris- 
tendom. In  modern  times,  this  people  were  first  visited  by  the  Por- 
tuguese in  1503.  "  When  the  Portuguese  arrived,"  says  Dr.  Bucha- 
nan, "  they  were  agreeably  surprised  to  find  upwards  of  a  hundred 
Christian  Churches  on  the  coast  of  Malabar.  But  when  they  became 
acquainted  with  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  their  worship,  they  were 
offended.  '  These  Churches,'  said  the  f^ortiiguese,  '  belong  to  the 
Pope.'  *  Who  is  the  Pope  ?'  said  the  natives  ;  '  we  never  heard  of 
him.'  The  European  Priests  were  yet  more  alarmed  when  they 
found  that  these  Hindoo  Christians  maintained  the  order  and  disci- 
pline of  a  regular  Church,  under  Episcopal  Jurisdiction  :  and  that 
for  1300  years  past  they  had  enjoyed  a  succssion  of  Bishps,  op- 
pointed  by  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch.  *  We,'  said  they,  '  are  of  the 
true  faith,  whatever  you  from  the  West  may  be ;  for  we  come  from 
the  place  where  the  followers  of  Christ  were  first  called  (  hrislians.* 
(Antioch.)  These  Portuguese  Romanists  '  accused  them  of  the  fol- 
lowing practices  and  opinions  :'  '  That  they  had  married  wives  ;  that 
they  owned  but  two  Sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper; 
that  they  neither  invoked  Saints,  nor  worshipped  Images,  nor  believed 
in  Purgatory  ;  and  that  they  had  no  other  Orders,  or  names  of  dig- 
nity in  the  Church,  than  Bishop,  Priest  and  Deacon.'"'^ — (Christie 
Researches  in  Asia,  p.  56.)  Dr.  Buchanan  states,  that  one  of  the 
Bishops  "  was  desirous  to  know  something  of  the  other  Churches 
which  had  separated  from  Rome.  I  was  ashamed  to  tell  him  how- 
many  there  were.  I  mentioned  that  there  was  a  Kasheesha,  or 
Presbyter  Church,  in  our  own  Kingdom,  in  which  every  Kasheesha 
(Presbyter)  was  equal  to  another.  '  Are  there  no  Shimshanas  V 
(Deacons  in  Holy  Orders.)  None.  'And  what!  is  there  nobody 
to  overlook  the  Kasheeshas  V  Not  one.  '  There  must  be  some- 
thing imperfect  there,"*  said  he.  *  *  *  *  *  I  see  it  is  with 
you,  as  it  was  in  the  first  ages :  new  sects  were  produced  by  true 
piety,  but  it  was  piety  founded  on  ignorance.'  (lb.,  page  69.) 
Again :  "These  people,  who  still  retain  their  ancient  creed  and  usa- 
ges, consider  themselves  as  the  descendants  of  the  flock  established 
oy  St.  Thomas,  who  is  generally  esteemed  the  Apostle  of  the  East." 
{lb.,  page  96.) 

We  have  another  similar  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  Nestorian 
Christians,  who,  from  time  immemorial,  have  been  secluded  among 
the  mountains  of  Koordistan,  (Ancient  Assyria.)  Dr.  Grant,  a  Mis- 
sionary of  the  American  Board,  has  recently  published  a  work,  ia 
which  he  gives  an  account  of  their  manners  and  customs — in  which 
the  reader  will  find  the  following  statements  :  "  God  has  in  great  mer- 
cy preserved  me  through  many  perils,  and  brought  me  among  a  peo- 
ple who  had  received  the  Gospel  from  the  Apostles,  and  immediate 
Disciples  of  our  Saviour,  and  had  preserved  its  doctrines  with  a 
great  deal  of  purity."  {Page  79.)  '*  Their  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment is  essentially  ^/jisco/jo/."  (Pa^e  105.)  '•  Nestorian  Churches 
and  Prelates  have  flourished  in  an  uninterrupted  succession  in  the 
same  places  where  they  were  founded  by  the  Apostles^  among  the 


46 

Israelites."  (Page  273.)  "And  all  this  while  (since  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  ere)  there  has  been  a  regular  uninter- 
rupted SUCCESSION  OF  BiSHOPs,  Priests,  Deacons,  and  Churches 
from  the  Apostolic  times  to  the  present  day  !"  (Page  278.)  This, 
reader,  is  the  testimony  of  a  non-Episcopalian.*  If  Episcopacy  had 
not  been  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  is  it  not  marvellous  that  various 
communities  of  Christians,  tracing  their  descent  from  the  Apostles, 
and  secluded  from  other  portions  of  the  word,  should  have  adopted 
it  ?  Is  it  not  marvellous  that  modern  travellers  have  never  discovered 
an  ANCIENT  "Kasheesha,  or  Presbyter  Church?" 

According  to  Hasselthe  Christian  Population  of  the  Globe  amounts 
to  251  millions;  of  these  223  millions  adhere  to  Episcopacy  and 
Apostolical  Succession — leaving  only  28  millions  who  do  not.  Thus 
more  than  six-sevenths  of  Christendom  are  Episcopalians  in  Church 
Government.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  these  six-sevenths  embrace 
the  oldest  Churches  on  earth — the  English  Church — the  Greek 
Churcht — the  Roman  Church — the  Swedish  Church,  and  many 
smaller,  but    equally    ancient    in    various  parts   of  Asia.     On  the 


*  Hear  what  Dr.  Grant  says  respecting  a  custom  of  the  Nestorians 
of  kissing  the  Cross,  as  an  expression  of  affection  towards  Him  who 
died  upon  it, — "I  must  confess  there  is  something  affecting  in  this 
simple  outward  expression  as  practised  by  the  Nestorians."  "May 
it  not  be,  that  the  abuse  of  such  symbols  by  the  votaries  of  the  Ro- 
man See,  has  carried  us  Protestants  to  the  other  extreme,  when  we 
utterly  condemn  the  simple  memento  of  the  cross?"  (P.  68.)  If  a 
Churchman  had  given  utterance  to  these  sentiments,  they  would 
have  been  trumpeted  through  the  country  as  indicative  of  a  most 
*'alarming  tendency." 

Dr.  Grant,  speaking  of  the  Nestorians  of  Ooroomiah  (^p.  \1)  says 
*'  They  abhor  image  worship,  auricular  confession,  and  the  doctrine 
of  Purgatory,  &c.  so  that,  not  inappropriately,  they  have  been  called 
the  Protestants  of  Asia."  The  Bishop  of  Ooroomiah,  when  in  this 
country  recently,  stated  to  a  congregation  of  our  Church  in  Boston  : 
"Our  Prayer-Books  are  like  your  Prayer  Books."  "We  keep 
Christmas  on  the  same  day  as  you.  We  keep  the  forty  days  of 
Lent.  We  keep  the  day  when  Christ  was  Crucified — the  day  of  his 
Ascension,  &c." 

t  The  Greek  Church  protested  against  the  Pope  many  Centuries 
before  Luther.  This  Church  in  Russia  alone,  has  47  millions  of 
members  among  whom  the  Scriptures  are  freely  circulated. 

Sweden  has  between  two  and  three  millions,  with  3500  Bishops 
Priests  and  Deacons.  No  country  has  been  kept  so  free  from  Re- 
ligious dissent — none  can  show  a  more  quiet,  or  more  happy  popula- 
tion—-none  posseses  a  more  generally  diffused  education  ;  which  is 
under  the  control  of  the  Church. 

Denmark  and  Norway  have  a  nominal  Episcopacy — though,  like 
the  Methodists,  they  have  lost  the  Succession.  But  even  the  shadow 
is  better  than  nothinof. 


47 

other  hand,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  remaining  one-seventh  is 
composed  wholly  of  innumerable  sects  that  have  sprung  up  only 
SINCE  THE  16th  Century — that  they  have  been  deprived  of  Episco- 
pacy by  accident,  rather  than  otherwise,  and  that  some  of  their  most 
distinguished  leaders  have  given  the  most  decided  testimony  in  favor 
of  Episcopacy : — let  all  this  be  remembered,  and  surely  no  one  can 
hesitate  as  to  which  side  is  more  likely  to  be  right.  Certainly  it  is 
not  very  modest,  not  very  reasonable,  for  so  small  a  minority  of 
Christians  of  modern  origin  to  demand  that  we  should  give  up  what 
we  believe  to  be  Scriptural,  merely  because  they  are  destitute  of  it — 
especially  when  we  cannot  conscientiously  adopt  any  other  Ministry, 
while  they  admit  the  validity  of  ours. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Apostolic  Succession  not  denied  through  the  Popes — Calvin 
Endeavored  to  Obtain  an  Episcopal  Ministry — Parker'' s  Conse- 
cration— Introduction  of  Christainity  into  Britain. 

Apostolical  Succession. 
Upon  this  point  Mr.  A.  has  committed  the  egregious,  but  very 
common,  mistake  of  supposing  that  it  depends  upon  the  succession 
of  the  Popes.  And  therefore,  has  merely  attempted  to  prove  (or 
rather  only  asserted)  that  there  is  no  certainty  who  were  first  Bishops 
of  Rome* — that  many  of  the  Popes  were  not  Bishops  at  all — and 


*  I  feel  it  my  duty  here  to  correct  a  mistake  which  Mr.  A.  has 
committed  with  regard  to  Eusebius.  He  says  :  "  Eusebius  (A.  D. 
320)  undertook  to  collect  evidence  on  this  point,  yet  he  declares  he 
had  to  tread  an  almost  untrodden  path  with  scarce  any  lights  to  direct 
him.     All  with  him  was  uncertainty  and  doubt." 

The  first  paragraph  in  Eusebius,  sets  forth  the  subjects  upon 
which  he  designs  to  treat,  some  of  which  I  will  mention  in  his  own 
words.  "It  is  my  purpose,  says  he,  to  record  the  successions  of  the 
Holy  Apostles,  *  *  *  *  *  to  descrbe  the  calamities  that  swiftly 
overwhelmed  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  in  consequence  of  their 
plots  against  our  Saviour  *  *  *  how  often,  by  what  means,  and  in 
what  times,  the  word  of  God  has  encountered  the  hostility  of  the 
natives."  From  this,  the  reader  at  once  sees  that  if  Eusebius  was  in- 
volved in  "  uncertainty  and  doubt,"  then  not  only  the  Doctrine  of 
Succession — but  some  of  the  most  [important  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity  are  uncertain — for  if  Eusebius  expresses  any  doubt,  it  is 
not  with  regard  to  the  Succession  only — but  witli  regard  to  the 
subjects  of  his  work  in  general.  But  he  has  expressed  no  doubt  as 
to  the  certainty  of  the  facts  which  he  records.  He  merely  offers  an 
apology  for  the  want  of  greater  detail.  It  is  true,  he  states  that  he 
was  "  attempting  a  kind  of  trackless  and  unbeaten  path."  But  by 
this,  he  merely  means,  (as  the  context  shows)  that  he  was  the  only 
individual  who  had  undertaken  to  compose  a  regular  history  from 


48 

many  of  them  very  wicked  men.  All  that  he  says  upon  these  points, 
whether  true  or  false,  is  entirely  irrelevant.  He  has  heaped  together 
numerous  quotations  from  various  writers,  and  as  usual,  without  a 
single  reference,  and  by  this  time  I  think  the  reader  has  too  many 
proofs  of  his  want  of  accuracy  to  place  much  confidence  in  them.  If 
all  his  alleged  facts  were  true,  they  would  not  invalidate  the  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession.  We  can  clearly  trace  it  without  the 
intervention  of  a  single  Pope.  He  makes  one  assertion,  however, 
which,  to  one  not  acquainted  with  the  subject,  may  seem  to  be  an 
exception — "  that  many  who  were  merely  Presbyters,  were  never- 
theless elected  to  the  Popedom,  and  Ordained  sevealW  the  English 
Bishops  and  Archbishops."  That  Presbyters  have  been  elected  to  the 
Popedom,  I  do  not  dispute.  But  were  they  not  Consecrated  before 
they  performed  its  functions  ?  Mr.  A.  does  not  assert  the  contrary — 
though  he  assumes  it — so  that  he  virtually  asserts  that  Presbyters 
ordained  English  Bishops — now  if  this  were  true,  it  would  not  be 
decisive,  for  there  have  always  been  various  Bishops  in  the  English 
Church,  and  a  Consecration  is  never  allowed  without  the  assistance 
of  two  or  three  Bishops.  And  it  invariably  happens  that  the  three 
Consecrating  Bishops  have  been  Consecrated  themselves  at  distant 
intervals,  and  on  various  places  and  by  different  Bishops.  And  if  it 
had  happened  that  one  of  the  consecrators  in  any  particular  instance 
had  been  Ordained  by  a  Presbeter — the  other  two  or  even  other  one, 
might  have  transmitted  the  Succession  unimpaired.  But  more  of 
this  anon.  But  this  assertion  though  not  essential,  is  an  important 
one.  And  I  submit  to  the  candid  reader,  whether  it  should  have 
been  made  without  names  or  dates,  or  even  authorities.     I  repeat 


the  begining  to  his  own  times.  He  states  expressly  that  "  some  had 
transmitted  partial  narratives  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived." — 
*'We  have  collected,"  says  he,  "  the  materials  that  have  been  scattered 
by  our  predecessors,  and  culled  as  from  some  intellectual  meadows, 
the  appropriate  extracts  from  ancient  autliors.^^  Again  :  Eusebius, 
says,  *•  Many  learned  men  of  the  Church  also  flourished  in  these 
times  of  whom  we  may  easily  find  epistles  which  they  wrote  to  one 
another,  still  extant.  These  have  been  also  preserved  for  us  in 
the  Library  of  Aelia,  which  was  built  by  Alexander,  who  was  Bishop 
there.  From  this,  we  have  also  been  able  to  collect  materials  for 
our  'present  work.''''  (Book  6,  ch.  20  )  It  is  fevident/then,that  he 
had  lights  to  direct  him — the  same  lights  which  other  historians 
have — "  materials"  contained  in  preceding  writers.  As  to  the  truth 
of  these  materials,  he  does  not  express  even  a  suspicion.  He  records 
with  perfect  confidence  the  Succession  of  Bishops  at  Jerusalem, 
Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  other  principal  cities.  iTusebius  regarded 
the  Succession  (as  did  all  ancient  authors)  as  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance. (See  his  1st  chap.)  I  shall  take  no  notice  of  Mr.  A*$ 
short  extracts  from  Pearson,  Cave,  Comber  and  others — for  two 
reasons  ;  first,  he  has  given  no  references,  though  their  writings  are 
very  voluminous ;  second,  what  they  say  relates  only  to  the  Papal 
Succession,  which  is  a  different  thing. 


49 

it,  Mr.  A.  might  as  well  have  spared  himself  the  trouble  of  stringing 
together  so  many  words,  and  contented  himself  with  a  simple  denial 
of  our  claim — as  to  make  unsupported  assertions  on  a  historical 
question.*  It  was  not  customary,  at  all,  for  the  Popes  to  Consecrate 
Bishops.  Besides,  it  could  not  have  been  done  without  the  assistance 
of  two  other  Bishops— d^s  this  was  required  by  a  Canon  of  the 
Council  of  Nice.  And  if  the  Pope  had  been  only  a  Presbyter,  the 
other  Bishops  were  sufficient.  Even  St.  Augustin,  although  he 
was  sent  to  England  by  Pope  Gregory,  and  by  him  appointed 
Archbishop  of  England,  was  not  Consecrated  by  him — but  by 
French  Bishops.  But  Mr.  A's  unsupported  assertion  is  an  utter 
mistake.  He  may  believe  it,  but  he  has  been  imposed  upon  by  some 
ignorant  or  unprincipled  author.  An  alleged  fact  of  such  moment, 
should  never  have  been  published  without  authorities — historical, 
impartial  authorities;  and  not  merely  opinions  of  modern,  interested 
Controversialists.!  He  has  stated  that  "  Calvin  required  Ministers 
coming  from  Roman  Churches,  to  renounce  their  former  Ordination.'* 
He  has,  of  course,  given  no  proof.  But  if  Calvin  did  so,  it  is  no 
wonder,  since  he  had  no  Ordination  himself.  That  a  man  pretending 
to  no  Ordination,  should  make  light  of  it,  is  perfectly  consistent; 
but  that  one  who  professes  to  have  been  Ordained  and  exhibits  so 
much  indignation  at  the  slightest  intimation  of  the  invalidity  of  his 
orders — should  employ  arguments,  which,  if  they  possess  any  force, 

*  He  says :  "  Omitting  to  name  my  authorities  for  the  sake  of 
brevity  !"     A  single  page  would  have  held  them  all. 

t  Since  the  above  was  written,  I  have  been  enabled  to  account  for 
the  mistakes  which  Mr.  A.  has  made.  He  states,  that  "in  his  facts, 
he  has  principally  followed  Mr.  Powell  on  Succession."  One  of 
our  Periodicals  which  has  just  come  to  hand,  gives  the  following 
account  of  Mr.  Powell  and  his  work:  "  Mr.  Powell  is  an  English 
Preacher  in  the  Wesleyan  Society,  who  has  recently  published  an 
Essay  on  Apostolical  Succession,  which  has  been  lauded  to  the  skies 
by  Dissenters  of  every  class,  and  is  already  triumphantly  republished 
by  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  at  New  York,  who  are  labouring  to 
give  it  the  widest  circulation.  In  all  its  references  to  ancient  authors, 
it  proves  to  be  a  most  shameless  tissue  of  perversion  and  falsehood, 
and  we  are  glad  to  find  that  it  has  been  unmasked  in  a  valuable  little 
publication  entitled  "  The  Weapons  of  Schism,"  by  the  Rev.  Edward 
A.  Stopford,  a  Clergymen  of  the  Church  of  Ireland.  For  our  know- 
ledge of  this  work,  we  are  indebted  to  The  Church,  the  Editor  of 
which,  after  reading  its  complete  exposure  of  Mr.  Powell's  wicked 
misrepresentations,  justly  characterizes  the  Essay  as  "an  imposture 
unparalleled,  perhaps,  in  the  annals  of  literary  dishonesty  and  political 
legerdemain." 

Our   contemporary  gives  copious  extracts  from  Mr.    Stopford's 
Review,  exposing  no  less  than  eighteen  absolute  forgeries,  nineteen 
studied  misrepresentations,  and  we  know  not  how  many  other  con- 
4* 


50 

prove  his  own  claims  a  nullity,  also,  is  a  very  suspicious  indication. 
It  appears  as  if  he  were  conscious  that  his  own  claims  are  untenable^ 
and  therefore,  induced  to  attempt  to  prove  those  of  others  equally 
so.  Mr.  A.,  in  the  first  part  of  his  pamphlet,  has  striven  very  hard 
to  prove  the  validity  of  Methodist  Orders,  upon  the  ground  that  they 
have  been  derived  from  an  Ordained  Clerygman  of  the  Church  of 
England^  (Mr.  Wesley.)  And  in  the  latter  part,  he  attempts  to 
prove,  not  only  that  the  Orders  of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  invalid, 
but  those  of  the  English  Church,  also !  Would  a  man  who  is  fully 
persuaded  of  the  legitimacy  of  his  commission,  attempt  to  nullify  the 
authority  that  conferred  it  ? 

Mr.  A.  has  asserted,  that  in  the  view  of  Calvin  and  others,  the 
Ordination  of  the  English  Church  was  spurious,  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  derived  from  the  Church  of  Rome.  That  this  is  another  mis- 
take, is  evident' from  the  following  authentic  statement :  "  How  Cal- 
vin stood  affected  in  the  said  point  of  Episcopacy,  and  how  readily 
and  gladly  he,  and  other  heads  oj  the  Reformed  Churches,  woidd 
have  received  it,  is  evident  enough  from  his  writings  and  epistles." 
(Strype's  Life  of  Bishop  Parker,  pp.  60,  70.)  "  They  (the  foreign 
Protestants)  took  such  great  joy  and  satisfaction  in  this  King,  (Ed- 
ward VI.)  and  his  establishment  of  Religion,  that  Bullinger,  and 
Calvin,  and  others,  in  a  letter  to  him,  offered  to  make  him  their  De- 
fender, and  to  have  Bishops  in  their  Churches,  as  there  were  in 
England:  with  a  tender  of  their  service  to  assist  and  unite  together." 
(Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  270.) 

Mr.  A.  asserts  that  Bishop  Barlow  was  the  only  Consecrator  of  Bi- 
shop Parker.  Here  is  another  serious  mistake.  Parker  was  Conse- 
crated by  four  Bishops.  Burnet  says  :  "  On  the  17th  December, 
1559,  Parker  was  Consecrated  in  the  Chapel  at  Lambeth,  by  Barlow, 
Scory,  Coverdale,  and  Hodgkins." — (Hist,  of  Ref.,  part  2,  p.  403.) 
Burnet  states  that  the  original  instrument  recording  the  Consecration, 

trivances  of  deceit ;  and  he  well  observes,  that  such  an  attempt  to 
despoil  Episcopacy  of  the  precious  testimony  of  the  Primitive  Fathers 
should  but  confirm  us  in  our  estimation  of  the  strength  and  justice 
of  our  cause  ;  "for  it  may  reasonably  be  considered  strong  presump- 
tive evidence  of  the  truth  of  any  doctrine,  fact,  or  opinion,  that  false- 
hood must  be  brought  to  bear  upon  it,  in  order  to  counteract  its  in- 
fluence or  disturb  its  foundations."  (  "Banner  of  the  Cross"  Dec. 
16th,  1843.)  Such  is  the  work  which  Mr.  A.  has  followed,  and 
which  he  says  :  ''  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  man  who  desires 
full  information !"  I  have  not  seen  Mr.  Powell's  work,  nor  Mr. 
Stopford's  answer.  But  as  Mr.  A.  has  '  followed'  the  former,  I  suppose 
I  have  to  perform  the  same  duty  as  the  latter.  Here  let  the  reader 
note  that  Mr.  A's  "  facts,"  as  he  calls  them,  are  derived,  not  from 
original  sources,  but  from  a  Methodist  Preacher  of  the  19th  Century  ! 
No  wonder  he  has  "  omitted  his  authorities."  He  pretends  to  ''  Re- 
fute Prelatical  Succession  !"  And  what  are  the  proofs  ?  The  asser- 
tions of  a  Methodist  Preacher ! ! 


51 

s  in  the  library  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge.  He  gives  a 
copy  of  it,  which  may  be  found  among  his  "  Collection  of  Records," 
part  2,  p.  263.  And  of  Barlow's  Consecration,  (which  Mr.  A, 
says  cannot  be  proved,)  I  have  the  most  indubitable  evidence  now 
before  me ;  but  as  Parker  had  three  other  Consecrators,  it  is  unne- 
cessary to  spread  it  before  the  reader — especially  as  Mr.  A.  has  not 
furnished  even  the  shadow  of  a  proof  to  the  contrary.  He  under* 
took  to  "  refute''  "  Prelatical  Succession,"  and  yet  he  has  given  us 
nothing  but  his  own  groundless  suspicions,  and  empty  assertions  ! 

He  lias  also  committed  several  errors  respecting  the  early  intro- 
duction of  the  Gospel  into  Britain.  He  represents  this  position  as  a 
"device  of  recent  origin,"  invented  on  account  of  the  " enormous 
wickedness  of  the  Papal  Bishops."  Here  are  two  mistakes.  This 
*'  device,"  as  he  calls  it,  is  an  historical  fact,  abundantly  proved  by 
the  testimony  of  writers  who  flourished  hundreds  of  years  before  the 
**  enormous  wickedness"  of  the  Popes  existed.  There  is  the  most 
conclusive  evidence  that  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Britian  du- 
ring the  first  century — or  within  the  Apostolic  Age.  I  shall  not, 
however,  trouble  the  reader  with  the  statemsnts  of  ancient  authors 
upon  this  point,  but  give  the  testimony  of  one  whose  learning  and 
position  render  him,  in  this  particular,  a  most  suitable  witness — I 
mean  that  most  distinguished  Methodist,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke.  This 
gentleman  delivered  an  address,  or  essay,  upon  this  very  point  in 
1814,  at  the  formation  of  a  Methodist  Missionary  Society  in  London, 
In  this  address,  he  has  collected  and  examined  most  of  the  evidence 
bearing  upon  this  subject.  He  has  furnished  extracts  from  Tertul- 
Jian,  Origen,  Athanasius  and  Chrysostom  in  its  favor — besides  proofs 
from  other  sources,  which  the  reader  may  examine  for  himself.  I 
will  only  give  the  conclusion  to  which  the  Doctor  arrives.  "  It 
would  be  easy,"  says  he,  "  to  increase  the  number  of  such  testimo- 
nies :  no  fact  is  better  proved^  than  that  the  British  Isles  have  re- 
ceived the  Gospel  of  Christ  from  the  very  remotest  Christian 
Antiquity^  nor  is  there  found  any  writer  of  credit  from  the  first  cen- 
tury downwards,  who  states  that  the  British  Isles  had  not,  in  his 
time,  received  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the 
Gospel  was  established  here  as  early  as  even  our  traditions  state  ; 
and,  very  probably,  by  the  ^ipostles  themselves,  ov  by  persons  fmmc- 
diaiely  deputed  by  them'''  Again  :  "  From  yll  that  i  have  said,  it 
will,  i  hope,  fully  appear,  that  we  have  received  our  Religion  from 
the  Apostolic  times.'' — (Dr.  Clarke's  Address  on  the  "  Introduction 
•of  the  Gospel  into  \\\q  British  Isles ;"  appended  to  **  Brown's  History 
of  Missions,"  vol.  2,  pp.  565,   569.)*     Let  any  one  examine   the 

*  For  the  convei^ience  of  our  own  citizens,  who  may  wish  to  exa- 
mine my  quotation>\  I  add,  that  this  work  maybe  found  in  the  Penn^ 
•sylvania  State  Libr rry,  together  with  the  following  works,  which  I 
have  also  referred  to  :  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley ;  Buchanan's  Re- 
searches ;  Dr.  Grant's  "  Nestorians  ;"  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reform 
mation;  Eusebius' Church  History  ;  Calvin's  Institutes  ;  Dr,  Henry's 
History  of  England ;  Wilberforce's  Life. 


52 

proofs  which  Dr.  Clarke  has  collected,  (though,  as  he  says,  many 
more  might  be  given,)  and  he  will  feel  satisfied  that  this  conclu- 
sion is  irresistible.  But  when  Churchmen  maintain  this  fact,  it  is- 
not  for  the  purpose  of  tracing  the  Succession,  (as  Mr.  A.  ought  to 
have  known,)  but  to  sustain  the  roiginal  independence  of  the  British 
Church  of  the  Pope, 

Dr.  Clarke,  then,  being  witness,  "  the  obscurity  resting  on  the 
early  history  of  the  British  Islands,"  is  all  in  Mr.  A.'s  own  head — at 
least  as  to  this  point.  It  is  true,  the  precise  year  cannot  be  told  with 
certainty,  nor  the  person  who  first  introduced  it — ihough  it  is  highly 
probable  that  it  was  St.  Paul — but  it  is  indubitably  clear  that  it  was 
as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Upon  this  point 
Mr.  A.  has  said  nothing  which  essentially  affects  "  Prelatical  Succes- 
sion." But  it  is  due  to  Truth  to  rectify  his  mistakes,  of  which  there 
is  scarcely  any  end.  Here  is  another  :  "  There  is  no  mention  of 
Bishops  in  Great  Britain  until  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,"  (A. 
D.  350.)  Three  British  Bishops  were  present  at  the  Council  of 
Aries,  in  France,  A.  D.  314.  This  is  stated  by  Dr.  Robert  Henry^ 
a  Presbyterian  Divine,  in  his  History  of  England,  (vol.  1,  p.  218> 
4th  London  edition.)  "  We  are  assured  (says  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  in  the 
address  before  quoted,)  that  there  were  three  British  Bishops  present 
at  the  Council  of  Aries,  held  A.  D.  314."  Consequently,  the  Church  in 
Britain  must  have  then  been  fully  organized,  and  probably  long  before. 
But  beyond  the  sixth  century,  our  Succession  can  be  traced,  not  only 
through  British  Bishops,  but  also  through  those  of  Europe  and  Asia» 
If  Mr.  A.  had  paid  that  attention  to  the  subject  which  he  should  have 
given  it,  he  would  have  known  this,  and  would  have  avoided  the 
blunder  of  asserting  that  the  Succession  cannot  be  traced  higher  than 
the  fourth  century,  because  there  were  no  Bishops  {?i  England  before 
that  time ! 

He  says  again  :  "  But  at  that  time,  (A.  D.  350)  and  long  subse- 
qently,  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  were  titles  of  the  same 
office."  This  is  disproved  by  my  quotations  from  Ignatius,  Tertul- 
lian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen — all  of  whom  wrote  long 
before  the  fourth  century.  It  is  also  contradicted  by  Mosheim,  (a 
Lutheran.)  He  states  that  in  the  second  century,  a  Bishop  presided 
in  every  Assembly,  assisted  by  a  Council  of  Presbyters,  who  were 
aided  by  the  Deacons. — (Church  History,  2d  Cent.,  part  2,  chap.  2.) 

Mr.  A.  says  :  ''  The  Abbot  who  first  Preached  in  Britain,  with 
success,  was  a  Presbyter;  and  Aidan,  who  succeeded  him,  was  ap- 
pointed and  ordained  Bishopby  a  company  of  Presbyters  or  Elders"!!! 
I  have  already  furnished  sufficient  evidence  that  the  Gospel  was 
preached  in  Britain,within,or  very  nearly  within,the  age  of  the  Apostles,, 
consequently,  it  was  not  by  an  Jibbot,  for  such  an  Order  of  men  had  no 
existence  until  long  after  that  time.  I  have  also  proved  that  three 
Bishops^  from  Britain,  attended  the  Council  of  Aries,  A.  D.  314  ; 
and  I  will  here  add,  that  Dr.  (  larke,  in  the  Address  before  quoted,, 
also  states  (and  gives  authorities,  as  every  writer  should  upon  such 


53 

subjects,)  "that  there  were  several  British  Bishops  at  the  Council  of 
Ariminium,  (Rimini)  held  A.  D.  359."  He  further  states,  that  Eccle- 
siastical Councils  were  held  in  England  at  these  different  periods : 
A.  D.  446,  449,  465,  512,  516,  (at  this  one,  he  says,  all  the  Jirch- 
bishops.  Bishops,  Abbots  and  Clergy  of  Britain  were  present,)  and 
519.  It  would  be  easy  to  furnish  proof  in  support  of  these  statements 
of  Dr.  Clarke,  but  it  is  deemed  unnecessary,  as  his  Address,  and 
authorities  are  probably  as  accessible  to  my  readers  as  any  others  I 
might  name.  Moreover,  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  there  were 
sundry  Bishops  in  Britain  at  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  St.  Augus- 
tin,  A.'  D.  596.— (See  Henry's  History  of  England,  vol.  3,  p.  195.) 
Augustin  held  a  conference  with  them,  and  made  several  proposals, 
which  they  steadfastly  refused.  These  facts  clearly  show  that,  from 
the  beginning  to  that  time,  there  had  been  in  Britain  an  independent 
Episcopal  Church. 

Once  more.  Mr.  A.  says  :  *'  Bede,  who  wrote  A.  D.  731,  is  said 
io  be  the  only  historian  on  whose  statements  the  least  reliance  can 
be  placed."  He  does  not  tell  us  by  ivhom  this  "  is  saidy  But  it 
is  Mr.  Powell,  I  suppose,  since  he  has  "  principally  followed"  hira. 
It  is,  however,  another  error.  There  is  a  British  historian  of  unques- 
tionable authority,  wiio  wrote  about  200  years  before  Bede — Gildas, 
surnaraed  the  Wise  — a  most  excellent  man,  and  faithful  Preacher  of 
the  Gospel.  Mosheim  places  him  among  the  celebrated  writers  of 
•the  sixth  century. — (Church  History.) 

The  pretended  quotation  (without  references)  from  Bede,  about 
*'  one  Wini,''  is  too  absurd  to  require  notice — besides,  if  it  had  been 
true,  it  does  not  affect  the  truth  of  the  Succession,  as  one  "  rightly 
Consecrated  Bishop"  could  have  transmitted  th-e  Apostolical  Com- 
mission ;  or  the  candidate  could  have  gone  to  the  Continent  for  Con- 
secration, as  did  Augustin. 

I  have  now  examined  the  statements  which  Mr.  A.  has  made,  and 
shown,  I  trust,  to  the  satisfaction  of  my  readers,  that  they  avail  no- 
thing. It  must  be  remembered  that  this  (doctrine  of  Succession,)  is 
an  historical  question — a  question  to  be  decided  by  historical  facts—- 
and  yet  Mr.  A.  has  not  proved  a  single  fact  that  has  any  direct  bearing 
upon  ito 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Succession  no  Neiv  Doctrine — Held  by  Non-Episcopalians — Trut 
Statement  of  It — Scrip'ural  Proofs  of  It — Historical  Proofs. 
S'ome  persons  may  imagine  that  this  is  a  new  doctrine — a  claim 
just  put  forth  by  modem  Episcopalians — a  Puseyite  invention.  But 
this  is  a  great  mistake.  It  is  neither  new  nor  peculiar  to  the  Episco- 
pal Church.  It  is  as  old  as  Christianity.  We  find  it  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  in  numberless  authors,  of  tlie  first  piety  and  learning, 
in  every  subsequent  xVge.  It  has  been  in  the  Prayer  Book  from  its 
formation.     In  common  with  Episcopacy,  it  is  held  by  six-sevenths 


54 

of  Christendom.  And  moreover,  it  has  been  advocate<3,  until  re- 
cently,  with  as  much  zeal  by  the  most  distinguished  individuals  and 
communions  rejecting  Episcopacy — not,  of  course,  Episcopal  Suc- 
cession, but  Presbyterian  Succession — that  is,  that  there  has  been  an» 
uninterrupted  Succession  of  Presbyters  from  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles— a  doctrine  exposed  to  the  same  objections  now  urged  against 
4he  Succession  in  the  Episcopal  line,  and  some  others  much  stronger 
—yea,  absolutely  unanswerable. 

I  will  begin  with  John  Calvin.  *'  Whoever,  therefore,"  says  he, 
"  either  aims  to  abolish  or  undervalue  this  Order  of  which  we  are 
treating,  (the  Ministry)  and  this  species  of  government,  attempts  to 
disorganize  the  Church,  or  rather,  to  subvert  and  destroy  it  altogether. 
For  light  and  heat  are  not  so  essential  to  the  Stsrij  nor  any  meat 
and  drink  so  necessary  to  the  nourishment  and  sustenance  of  the 
present  hfe^  as  the  Apostolical  Office  is  to  the  preservation  of  the 
Church  of  the  World,*' — (Calvin's  Inst.  lib.  4,  chap.  3,  sec.  2.)  Here 
the  Apostolical  Ministry  is  declared  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
preservation  of  the  Church.  Such  language  as  this,  used  by  a 
Churchman,  would  now  be  called  "  Puseyism." 

Again  :  "  Our  Lord,  when  he  sent  forth  his  Apostles,  commissionetl 
Jhem  to  Preach  the  Gospel,  and  to  Baptise  all  believers,  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  He  had  already  commanded  them  to  distribute 
the  Sacred  Symbols  of  His  Body  and  Blood,  according  to  •  his  own 
example.  Behold  the  sacred,  inviolable,  and  perpetual  law  imposed 
ajpon  those  who  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles^  (qui  in  Aposto-* 
iorum  locum  succedunt  ;)  it  commands  them  to  Preach  the  Gospel^ 
and  to  administer  the  Sacraments.     ("lb..  Book  4,  eh.  3,  sec.  6.) 

While  quoting  Calvin  on  the  Ministry,  I  cannot  forbear  to  add  a  few 
znore  passages,  that  the  reader  may  know  the  views  of  standard  pub- 
lications among  Dissenters.  "  In  the  communion  of  Saints,  sins  are 
remitted  to  us  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Church,  when  the  Presbyters 
or  Bishops,  to  whom  this  office  is  committed,  confirm  pious  con- 
sciences by  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  hope  of  pardon  and 
remission."  ''  This  benefit  belongs  to  the  Church,  so  that  we  can- 
not enjoy  it,  unless  we  continue  in  its  communion.  Thirdly,  that 
at  is  dispensed  to  us  by  the  Ministers  and  Pastors  of  the  Church, 
either  in  the  Preaching  of  the  Gospel,  or  in  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments  ;  and  that  this  is  the  principal  exercise  of  the  power  of 
the  Keys,  which  the  Lord  has  conferred  on  the  society  of  the  Faith- 
ful. Let  every  one  of  us,  therefore,  consider  it  his  duty  not  to  seek 
remission  of  sins  any  where  but  where  the  Lord  has  placed  it.'' 
(Calvin's  Institutes,  Book  4,  chap.  1,  sec.  22.)  The  Presbyterian 
Confession  of  Faith  declares,  "  Tliat  neither  of  the  Sacraments  may 
be  dispensed  by  any  but  a  Minister  of  the  wohd,  laavfully  Or- 
dained." (Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  27,  sec.  4.)  "  To  these  offi- 
cers (of  the  Church)  the  Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  are 
COMMITTED.  By  virtue  thereof,  they  have  power  respectively  to  re- 
tain AND  REMIT  SINS  ;  to  shut  that  Kingdom  against  the  impenitent," 
&c.     (lb.  chap.  30,  sec.  2.)     Again,  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 


55 

per  :  "  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  then  not  corporally  and 
carnally  in,  with,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine,  yet  as  really  but 
SPIRITUALLY  PRESENT  to  the  faith  of  believers  in  that  Ordinance,  as 
the  elements  themselves  are  to  their  outward  senses."  (Chap.  29, 
sec.  7.)  It  would  puzzle  one  to  find  stronger  language  upon  any  of 
these  points  in  the  Prayer  Book,  or  even  in  the  Oxford  Tracts.  An 
intelligent  Presbyterian  lady  was  asked  what  she  thought  of  Dr.  Pu- 
sey's  Sermon  on  the  Eucharist.  She  replied  :  "  Before  I  can  answer 
that  question  intelligently,  I  must  first  learn  what  our  own  doctrine 
is  upon  the  subject."  Let  the  Standards  of  the  various  Denomina- 
tions be  investigated  with  regard  to  the  points  now  so  much  contro- 
verted, and  it  will  be  seen  that  they  contain  a  great  deal  of  what  is 
cried  down  as  "  Puseyism." 

Here  I  will  subjoin  an  extract  from  No.  27  of  the  Oxford  Tracts, 
respecting  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  :  "  Hence  it  is 
most  evident  that  the  Bread  and  Wine  are  neither  changed  as  to 
their  substance,  nor  vanished,  nor  reduced  to  nothing,  but  are 
solemnly  Consecrated  by  the  words  of  Christ,  that  by  them  His 
Blessed  Body  and  Blood  may  be  communicated  to  us.  And  further, 
it  appears  from  the  same  words,  that  the  expressions  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles  are  to  be  understood  in  a  Sacramental  and  mystic  sense, 
and  that  no  gross  and  carnal  presence  of  Body  and  Blood  can  be 
maintained."  Does  not  this  fully  accord  with  the  extract  from  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  ?  It  certainly  is  not  Transubstan- 
tiation,  for  Transubstantiation  implies  a  change  of  the  substance 
of  the  elements,  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ — so  that  the  sub- 
stance NO  longer  exists,  but  only  the  appearance.  Such  a  change, 
I  add,  is  also  denied  by  Dr.  Pusey,  in  the  preface  to  his  celebrated 
Sermon  on  the  Eucharist.  Many  Protestants,  as  is  well  known, 
have  charged  that  Sermon  with  Transubstantiation,  but  the  periodi- 
cals of  the  Romanists,  in  this  country,  declared  that  it  contained  no 
such  thing !  I  have  no  wish  to  defend  all  the  views  contained  in 
those  Tracts :  like  other  human  compositions,  they  contain  excep- 
tionable passages,  but  their  errors  hav©  been  greatly  exaggerated. 

Again :  The  Commentary  of  the  Westminster  General  Assembly 
of  Divines,  commonly  known  as  the  Assembly's  Annotations,  makes 
these  observations  upon  John,  20th  chap.,  24th  verse  :  "  As  my  Fa- 
ther hath  sent  me,  <fec.  He  gave  them  a  mission  and  charge  before, 
but  as  Preachers  to  warn  the  Jews  to  hear  Christ:  but  now  He 
sendeth  them  as  Apostles  and  Ambassadors  to  other  nations — com- 
mitting the  Ministry  to  their  execution,  which  Himself  had  performed 
in  teaching.  He  appointed  them  and  their  successors  His  Surro- 
gates in  His  absence."  "Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,"  &;c.  (Matthew 
18  ch.  18  verse.)  ''This  power  is  equally  given  to  all  the  Disciples,  and 
their  Successors,  respectively :  First,  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of 
Faith  and  Repentance,  as  the  Key  of  Heaven  committed  to  their 
Ministry,  which  (according  as  it  is  received  and  obeyed,)  bindeth  and 
looseth."  Again,  in  the  Annotations  on  Matthew',  28  chap.  20  verse, 
we  find  the  following:  "/aw  with  you  always.     Though  your 


56 

work  be  hard,  I  will  assist  yon,  and  your  Successors  in  the  Minis- 
try, at  all  times,  to  the  World's  enciy  And  when,  under  the  usur- 
per Cromwell,  Fresbyterianism  was  for  a  time  established  upon  the 
ruins  of  Episcopacy,  similar  claims  were  set  forth  in  a  work  entitled 
"  Jus  Divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesiastici :  or,  the  Divine  Right  of 
Church  Government,  Asserted  and  Evidenced  by  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, &c.  By  sundry  Ministers  of  Christ  within  the  City  of  Lon- 
don." The  second  edition  of  this  work  was  put  forth  in  1647.  It 
says  :  "  All  power  of  Church  Government  is  radically  and  funda- 
mentally in  Christ.  (Is.  9  chap.  6  verse;  Matt.  28  chap,  18  verse.) 
And  how  shall  any  part  of  it  be  derived  from  Christ  to  man,  but  by 
some  fit  medium^  or  mean  betwixt  Christ  and  man  ?  And  what 
medium,  or  mean  of  conveyance  betwixt  Christ  and  man,  can  suffice. 
if  it  does  not  amount  to  an  authentic  grant  or  commission  for  such 
power?  This  is  evidently  Christ's  way  to  derive  power  by  authen- 
tic commission  immediately  to  His  Church  Officers,  the  Apostles, 
and  their  Successors,  to  the  WorUVs  end^  (Chap.  10,  pp.  100, 
102.)  As  what  was  said  to  the  Apostles  touching  Preaching  and 
Baptising,  remitting  and  retaining  sins,  ivas  said  to  all  the  Apostles^ 
Successors,  to  the  end  of  the  WorUiy  (John,  20  chap.  20,  21,  23 
verses,  with  Matt.  28  chap.  18,  19,  20  verses,  chap.  4,  p.  14..) 

I  here  insert  a  passage  from  Bishop  Henshaw's  "  Lectures  on  the 
Construction  of  the  terms  Altar,  Priest,  and  Sacrifice  :" 

"  We  give  the  following  extract  from  the  Rev.  J.  Cumming,  a  Mi- 
nister of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  from  which  it  appears  that  there  are 
still  some  Presbyterians  who  admit  that  the  Doctrine  of  Apostolical 
Succession  is  not  the  worst  of  heresies,  and  that  Episcopacy  has  no 
affinity  with  Popery : 

*'  *  All  our  old  Scottish  Divines,  among  whom  the  Gillespies  oc- 
cupy a  prominent  place,  held  Apostolical  Succession  not  only  to  be 
the  possession,  but  the  high  and  happy  privilege  of  our  Presbyters. 
In  fact,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  the  question  of  Apostolical  Succession 
involves  and  includes  the  question  of  Ordination  or  non-Ordination. 
*  *  *  But  wherein  do  we  diffijr  about  Succession  ?  In  the  .Church 
of  England,  it  is  generally  supposed  to  descend  in  the  line  of  Bishops 
— and  with  us  in   the   line  of  Presbyters.  *  *  *  *  It  is  this  view 

THAT  LEADS  US  TO  REGARD  THE  INDEPENDENTS  AS  CHRISTIANS  WITH- 
OUT A  Church,  and  to  insist  on  the  Ordination  of  Independent  Mi- 
nisters before  they  could  hold  a  Benefice,  or  officiate  in  our  Com- 
munion. 

"  '  There  is  not  a  Clergyman  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  who 
would  continue  to  hold  his  Benefice  with  Independent  Ordination, 
and  sure  I  am  that  there  is  not  one  who  dares  avow  his  preference  of 
it;  for  against  no  Forrr^  of  Church  Government  has  the  Scottish 
[Presbyterian"]  Church  made  a  firmer  stand  than  that  of  Congrega- 
tionalism, or  Independency.  The  Orders  of  an  Episcopal  Minister 
are  distinctly  adrnitted  and  sustained  by  the  [^Presbyterian']  Church 
of  Scotland,  but  those  of  Independency  are  treated,  and  justly,  as 
no   right  Scriptural   Ordination.     Indeed,  apart   from  all  conside- 


57 

rations  of  Ministerial  Succession,  nothing  can  open  so  effectually  a 
door  to  every  extravagance  in  Doctrine,  and  every  arrogant  assump- 
tion of  fanaticism,  as  the  plan  of  Independency.  The  man  that  con- 
ceives, justly  or  unjustly,  that  he  has  a  Call  from  God  to  enter  on 
the  Ministry,  has  only  to  bring  together  a  few  as  wild  and  well  mean- 
ing as  himself,  and,  in  a  twinkling,  he  is  registered  as  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Such-a-one,  Minister  of  the  Church  assembling  in  such  a  Chapel, 
and  in  proportion  to  the  success  of  such  empiricism  will  be  the  rarity 
of  learning  and  weight   in  the  Christian    Ministry.  *  *  *  *  I  hold 

THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  MINISTERIAL    SUCCESSION     FROM    THE    DAYS    OF 

THE  Apostles:  I  claim  it  for  my  oivn  beloved  co-Presbyters  ;  and 
I  cannot  see  that  because  this  great  truth  has  been  abused,  it  is 
to  be  trampled  on  and  despised,  as  it  has  been  by  many  who  have 
plunged  into  the  opposite  extreme.'  " 

It  seems,  then,  that  other  Protestant  Ministers  have  claimed  to  be 
the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  too  ;  and  this  claim  would  never  have 
been  abandoned,  had  it  not  been  so  clearly  proved  that  there  can  be 
no  Succession  of  the  Ministerial  Commission,  except  through  the 
Bishops. 

I  will  now  add,  for  the  benefit  of  our  Methodist  brethren,  the  views 
of  Mr.  Wesley.  "  We  account,"  says  he,  "  Ordination  to  be  of 
Divine  Institution,  and  that  by  it  a  Ministerial  Commission  is 
CONVEYED."  (Wesley's  Works,  vol.  10,  p.  47,  Harpers' ed.  1827.) 
"  Our  Lord  gave  this  Commission  (to  Baptise)  only  to  the  Aposdes, 
AND  theih  Successors  in  the  Ministry."  (lb.  vol.  10,  p.  57.)  "  We 
believe  it  would  not  be  right  for  us  to  administer,  either  Baptism  or 
the  Lord's  Supper,  unless  we  had  a  Commission  so  to  do,  from  those 
Bishops  whom  we  apprehend  to  be  in  a  Succession  from  the  Apos- 
tles." "  We  believe  that  there  is,  and  always  was,  in  every  Chris- 
tian Church,  (whether  dependent  on  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  not,)  an 
outward  Priesthood,  Ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  outward 
Sacrifice  offered  therein,  by  men  authorized  to  act  as  Ambassadors 
of  Christ,  and  Stewards  of  the  Mysteries  of  God."  (lb.  vol.  2, 
pp.  74,  75.)     What  a  "  Puseyite"  Mr.  Wesley  was  ! 

My  quotations  from  Calvin,  the  Westminster  Divines,  &;c.,  show 
clearly  that  non-Episcopalians  of  former  times  maintained  and  advo- 
cated the  Succession,  as  strenuously  as  any  "  High  Churchman  ;" 
but  their  children  have  taken  different  ground.  It  is  now  denounced 
as  the  essence  of  Popery — those  who  believe  it  are  rapidly  uiulergo- 
ing  an  "  awful  change."  It  does  not  seem  to  occur  to  our  accusers, 
that  the  change  is  in  themselves.  But  all  this,  I  suppose,  is  the 
progress  of  Reform  :  and  when  will  this  Reform  be  ('ompleted  ?  Ask 
the  Rationalists.  But  let  this  Doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession 
be  candidly  considered  and  properly  understood,  and  it  will  be  seen 
that  it  is' far  from  deserving  the  anathemas  which  have  been  henped 
upon  it.  What  is  it,  then  I  It  is  all  comprehended  in  these  simple 
and  innocent  propositions  :  First,  That  the  Saviour  authorized  His 
Aposdes  to  act  as  His  Ambassadors — to  Preach  the  Gospel,  to  admi- 
nisier  the  Sacraments,  and  to  exercise  the  Discipline  of  his  Church. 


58 

This  no  one  will  dispute — the  Scripture  proof  is  too  plain  :  "  As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  (John,  20  :  21.)  "  Go 
ITE,  therefore,  and  teach  all  Nations,  Baptising  them,"  &c. — "  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things   whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ; 

AND  LO,  I  AM  WITH  YOU  ALWAY,  EVEN  UNTO  THE  END  OF  THE  WOHLD." 

(Matt.  28  :  19,  20.)  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  Earth,  shall  be 
bound  in  Heaven,"  &c.  (Matt.  18  :  18.)  St.  Paul  and  St.  Timo- 
thy afterwards  say,  that  they  acted  *'  in  Christ's  stead" — that  they 
were  his  "  Ambassadors,"  and  that  God  "  besought"  men  through 
THEM.  (2  Cor.  5:  20.)  The  first  proposition,  then,  is  unques- 
tionable. 

The  Second  is,  That  they  imparted  similar  authority  to  others— 
though  different  degrees  of  it  to  different  classes,  or  Orders  of  men — 
to  one  class,  authority  to  Preach  and  Baptise,  which  embraced  the 
Deacons  ;  to  a  second,  the  additional  authority  to  administer  the  other 
Sacrament,  called  Presbyters :  and  to  a  third,  or  higher  class,  besides 
the  authority  given  to  the  other  two,  the  authority  to  Commission 
OTHER  MEN  iu  like  manner,  who  became  their  Successors.  We  find 
an  account  of  the  first  class,  in  the  6th  chapter  of  "Acts."  There 
are  many  allusions  to  the  second,  but  I  shall  refer  to  but  one — Acts, 
20  :  17,' 38.  Here  St.  Paul  gathers  around  him  the  Presbyters  (El- 
ders) of  Ephesus,  and  gives  them  a  final  charge,  expecting  to  see 
their  face  no  more,  and  yet  he  says  not  a  word  to  them  about  Ordi- 
nation— from  which  it  is  evident  they  did  not  possess  the  authority 
to  confer  it — at  least,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  fact  that  the 
New  Testament  nowhere  ascribes  to  them  this  authority.  And  now, 
do  we  not  find  the  third  class  in  the  New  Testament — a  class  of 
men  whom  the  Apostles  endowed  with  authority  to  Commission 
other  men  to  act  as  Ministers  ?  In  support  of  this  there  is  abundant 
proof  furnished  ;  First,  by  the  fact  that  other  men  were  admitted  to 
the  Apostleship.  Thus,  in  the  first  chapter  of  "  Acts,"  we  learn 
that  the  Apostles  put  Matthias  in  the  place  of  Judas,  ^'  and  he  was 
numbered  with  the  eleven  Apostles,"  Next,  St.  Paul  was  "  call- 
ed" and  "  Ordained  to  be  an  Apostle."  (Rom.  1  :  1  ;  1  Tim.  2:  7.) 
Barnabas  also  was  placed  in  the  same  office  ;  *'  which,  when  the 
Apostles  Barnabus  and  Paul  heard  of,"  &c.  (Acts,  14:  14.)  Again, 
Sylvanus  and  Timothy  became  Apostles.  (See  1  Thess.  1 :  1  <fe2  ; 
6, 8.)  We  might  name  more,  but  these  are  suflficient  to  prove  that  others 
beside  the  Twelve  received  the  ofiice  of  the  Apostleship.  But  some 
may  fancy  that  it  was  only  the  Name  that  they  received.  But  is  it  likely 
that  the  tide  would  have  been  given,  without  the  office — a  title  which  had 
been  appropriated  to  the  Twelve  from  the  begining?  But  we  have 
Scripture  proof  thatthey  received  the  Office— the  authority  to  Ordain 
and  Superintend.  I  have  already  shown  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  Apostles,  and  that  they  exercised  the  peculiar  and  exclusive 
prerogative — the  Ordaining  power — of  the  first  Order,  is  stated 
in  Acts,  14,  23  :  "  And  when  they  had  Ordained  them  Elders  (Presby 
ters)  in  every  Church,  and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended 
them  to  the  Lord,  in  whom  they  believed."     The  context  (see  versei 


59 

A,  20)  show  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  here  spoken  of.  The  14th 
verse  calls  them  Apostles,  and  the  23d  verse  states  that  they  Ordained 
Presbyters  in  every  Church.  Now,  that  the  Elders,  or  Presbyters, 
(for  these  terms  are  synonymous  in  the  New  Testament,)  were  a  dis- 
tinct class,  or  Order,  from  those  called  Apostles,  is  clearly  proved  by 
several  passages  of  Scripture.  Thus,  when  the  controversy  respect' 
ing  Circumcision  arose  in  the  Church,  it  is  stated  that  "  the  Apostles 
AND  Elders  came  together  to  consider  of  this  matter."  (Acts,  15:  6.) 
Again  :  "  The  Apostles  and  Elders,  and  brethren,  send  greeting  unto 
the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles."  (Acts,  15:  23.)  If  the 
Apostles  and  Elders  had  not  formed  distinct  classes,  or  Orders,  they 
would  of  course  have  been  included  under  one  name  in  such  passa- 
ges. And  what  could  have  constituted  the  ground  of  distinction,  but 
what  I  have  stated  ?  It  was  not  that  the  Apostles  wrought  miracles  : 
for  the  Presbyters  did  the  same — yea,  the  Deacons — yea,  even 
the  laity.  It  was  not  that  the  Apostles  witnessed  the  Resurrection  : 
for  it  is  said,  "  He  was  seen  by  500  brethren  at  once."  But,  to  pro- 
ceed with  our  proof  that  the  Apostles  conveyed  the  Ordaining  autho- 
rity to  others,  who  were  likewise,  at  least  for  a  lime,  called  Apostles. 
St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  Timothy,  treats  of  the  qualifications  of 
Ministers  of  the  Church — gives  him  sundry  directions  respecting 
the  administration  of  Discipline,  some  of  which  show  that  he  presi- 
ded over  the  Elders — thus,  he  tells  him,  "  Against  an  Elder  receive 
not  an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses."  Finally,  he 
tells  him  :  "Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man  ;"  which  is  obviously  a 
caution  not  to  Ordain  hastily.  Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  Ti- 
mothy was  at  Ephesus,  (1  Tim.  1  :  3)  and  that  there  were  sundry 
Elders  in  the  same  city  ;  (Acts,  20 :  17,)  and  the  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible, that  as  ancient  authors  declare,  Timothy  was  Bishop*  of 
Ephesus,  in  the  present  sense  of  the  word.  This  is  confirmed  by  a 
passage  in  St.  Paul's  second  Epistle  to  him  :  "  The  things  that  thou 
hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to 
FAITHFUL  MEN,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also."  Here,  it 
is  obvious,  that  Timothy  received  the  Apostolical  Commission  to 
commission  others  ;  consequently,  he  was  a  Successor  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  thus  we  find  Apostolical  Succession  in  Scripture.  Again  : 
We  have  a  similar  proof  in  the  case  of  Titus.  St.  Paul  says  to  him  : 
"  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Cretet ;  that  thou  shouldest  set 
IN  order  the  things  which  are  wanting,  and  Ordain  Elders  in 
every  city,  as  I  HAD  APPOINTED  THEE."  (Titus,  1  :  5.)  Here  is 
demonstration  that  Titus  received  from  St.  Paul  the  same  plenipo- 
tentiary Commission  which  he  had  received  from  the  Saviour.  Here, 
then,  according   to    Scripture   itself,  is   another    Successor   of   the 


*  In  Rev.  2  :  1,7,  some  one  is  addressed  under  the  title  of  Angel. 
Who  could  it  have  been  but  a  Bishop  ? — for,  as  stated  in  the  Acts  of 
Apostles,  Ephesus  contained  sundry  Elders. 

t  Crete  was  a  large  and  populous  Island  ip  the  Mediteranean, 
containing  numerous  cities. 


60 

Apostles,   and    another    instance    of   Apostolical    Succession.      It 
would   be    easy  to  multiply  proofs,   but  it  is   needless— two   well 
established  instances,  such  as  these  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  are  as 
good  as  a  score.     These  prove  incontestibly,  that  as  far  down  as  the 
New    Testament  History   extends,    the    Apostles    had    Successors. 
Consequently,  that  the  Apostolical  Succession  can  be  traced  in  Holy 
Scripture,  from    Matthew  to  Revelation.     If,  then,  the    Scriptures 
teach  that  the  Aposdes  had  Successors,  is  it  not  palpably  erroneous 
cO  represent  the  very  idea  as  absurd  and  arrogant?     If  Timothy  and 
Titus  received  from  the  Apostles  the  Ordaining   Commission,  and 
became  their  Successors — is  it  a  very  improbable  notion  that  others 
have  inherited  the  same  gift?  So  far  from  being  improbable,  there  is 
obviously  the   highest  presumption  in  its  favor.      If  Timothy  and 
Titus  received  this  Commission,  it  must  have  been  necessary  to  the 
welfare  of  Christianity.     But  there  was  no  necessity  then  for  such 
a  Commission,  that  has  not  existed  with  equal  force  in  every  subse- 
quent Age.     If  the  Gospel  was  to  be  Preached,  and  the  Church 
perpetuated  until  the  Second  Advent  of  the  Redeemer,  of  course. 
Ministers  were  to  be  chosen  and  Ordained  for  the  purpose — and  this 
rendered  a  transmission  of  the  original    Commission,  as  necessary 
for  one  Age  as  another.     And  since  it  was  necessary,  the  Apostles 
must  have  designed  it.     And  moreover,  the  Saviour  himself  must 
have  designed  it,  when  he  promised  to  be  with  the  Apostles  "to  the 
end  of  the  word."     That  he  may  fulfil  this  promise — that  he  may 
be  with  the  Apostles    '  to  the  end  of  the  world"  in  the  propogation 
of  the  Gospel,  there  must  be  Jipostbs  (in  Office  and  Authority,] 
to  the  end  of  the  world."     But  since  the  first  Aposdes  soon  died,  it 
was  necessary  that  others  should  succeed  them.     These  and  other 
circumstances  which  could  be  mentioned,  manifesdy  create  a  strong 
presumption  m  favor  of  this  Doctrine,  indeed  the  latter,  the  promise 
of  the    Saviour,  furnishes   much  more   than   a  presumption.     His 
promise  cannot   have  failed.     And  since   a   Succession  of  similar 
Officers  was  necessary  to  its  fulfilment,  that  Succession  must  have 
continued  unbroken.     But  as  a  historical  fact,  there  is  none  better 
established.     I  have  already  proved  from  Scripture  that  the  Apostles 
did  commit  the  authority  to  Ordain  and  superintend  to  other  men. 
And  here,  of  course.  Scriptural  proof  ceases,  because  the  Scripture 
history  closes   with   the  Lives  of  the  Aposdes.     Scripture  cannot 
record  what  occurred  long  after  it  was  written.     But  we  have  other 
evidence  of  tlie  continuance  of  this  Succession,  of  which  Scripture 
relates   the   beginning — evidence   most  indubitable.     We   have   the 
testimony    of  writers  who  lived  at  the  close  of  the  same  Age — 
writers  who  lived  in  the  next  Age,  and  so  on,  down  to  the  present. 
If  any  Christian    feels  unwilling  to   receive  the    Testimony   of  the 
Fathers,*  we  have  only  to  remind  him  that  it  is  by  their  testimony  that 
we  determine  the  New  Testiment  Canon — which  is  a  matter  of  the 


*  We  are  not  bound  to  receive  all  their  Doctrinal  Opinions  ;  but 
only  their  testimony,  as  competent  witnesses  oi  facts. 


61 

greatest  moment,  as  our  Faith  depends  upon  the  Books  of  Scripture. 
If  we  did  not  know  that  the  Aposdes,  or  men  under  their  direction, 
wrote  the  Gospel,  we  should  have  no  assurance  of  their  Truth.  But 
how^do  we  know  that?  By  the  Testimony  of  the  Fathers.  Again  : 
The  Books  of  Scripture  were  composed  by  different  persons,  and  at 
distant  periods,  and  lor  a  long  time  they  were  not  bound  together  as 
now.  But  how  do  we  know  that  these  Books  were  really  written 
at  the  time,  and  by  the  persons  alleged?  By  the  same  Testimony — 
the  writings  of  later  authors,  called  Fathers.  If,  then,  the  testimony 
of  these  men  be  credible  in  questions,  essentially  affecting  the  Truth 
of  Christianity,  it  must  be  credible  in  the  one  under  consideration. 
The  reader  has  already  seen  that  these  authors  bear  the  most  decided 
Testimony  in  favor  of  Episcopacy.  And  if  Christians  receive  their 
Testimony  in  a  matter  involving  their  Faith,  how  can  they  consis- 
tently reject  it  in  the  matter  of  Episcopacy? 

Now,  these  same  authors,  whom  we  all  believe  when  testifying 
that  such  a  Book  was  written  by  such  an  Apostle,  and  universally 
acknowledged  as  genuine  in  their  day — likewise  testify,  that  certain 
men  succeeded  in  the  Apostolic  Office  thsse  whom  the  Apostles 
commissioned.  And  if  we  are  bound  to  believe  in  the  former  case, 
we  are  equally  bound  to  believe  in  the  latter.  Their  writings 
(particularly  those  of  Eusebius,)  prove  incontestably  that  the  Succes- 
sion was  conveyed  down  to  the  Fourth  Century.*  And  in  the  early 
part  of  the  Fourth  Century,  the  Council  of  Nice  was  held,  which 
was  attended  by  318  Bishops  t  from  all  parts  of  the  world.     And  so 


*  Irenaeus  who  was  Ordained  by  Polycarp,  the  Disciple  of  St. 
John,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  178,  says :  "  We  can  reckon  up 
those  whom  the  Apostles  Ordained  to  be  Bishops  in  the  several 
Churches,  and  who  they  were  that  succeeded  them  down  to  our 
own  times.  For  the  Aposdes  desired  to  have  those  in  all  things 
perfect  and  reprovable,  whom  they  left  to  be  their  Successors,  and  to 
whom  they  committed  their  own  Apostolic  authority.  We  have 
THE  Successions  of  Bishops  to  whom  the  Apostolic  Church  in 
every  place  was  committed.  All  these  (viz.  the  heretics)  are 
much  later  than  the  Bishops  to  whom  the  Apostles  did  deliver  the 
Churches."  (Adv.  Haire,  L.  3,  c.  4.) 

And  Tertullian,  A.  D.  200,  lin  the  passage  already  quoted,  see 
page  24,)  maintained  the  same  fact.  And  he  employed  it  to  test  the 
claims  of  the  schismatics  of  his  day.  "  Let  them,"  syas  he,  "un- 
roll the  list  of  thur  Bishops,  descending  by  Succession  from 
THE  beginning."  So  Churchmon  now  say  to  those  who  dissent  from 
them.     We  "unroll  our  list,"  and  challenge  them  to  do  the  same. 

Again :  Cyprian,  A.  D.  250,  asserted  the  same  fact— as  shown  by 
the  quotation  on  page  62.  Eusebius  gives  the  Succession  in  several 
Churches  down  to  A.  D.  305.  And  the  English  Reformers,  like- 
wise, claimed  the  Succession :  See  quotations  on  page  40. 

tHere  let  me  state  that  these  were  the  noble  men  who  raised  the 
standard  of  Gospel  Truth  against  the  heretical  Teachers  who 
denied  the  Deity  of  our  Adorable  Redeemer. 


62 

highly  did  they  value  the  Succession — and  so  anxious  were  they  to 
perpetuate  it  unimpaired,  that  they  passed  a  Canon  prescribing  that 
a  Bishop  should  not  be  Ordained,  except  by  all  the  Bishops  of  the 
Province  ;  or  if  all  could  not  be  present,  that  there  should  be  at  least 
three  to  unite  in  the  Ordination,  and  that  the  absent  ones  should  give 
their  consent.  (See  Canon  4.*)  These  Bishops  declared  that  their 
object  was  not  to  make  new  regulations,  so  much  as  to  reduce  to  law 
the  usages  which  had  previously  prevailed.  And,  therefore,  it  is 
probable  that  this  practice  had  prevailed  all  along.  Now  this  Canon 
rendered  a  breach  in  the  Succession  morally  impossible.  As  it  was 
passed  by  the  Representatives  of  the  Church  in  every  part  of  the 
world — it  was  universally  received  by  the  Church.  And  it  has  bean 
every  where,  and  always,  acknowledged  to  be  binding.  In  the  early 
times,  the  Diocesses  were  much  smaller  than  now,  and  the  Bishops 
were  consequently  very  numerous.  There  has  been  no  Age  in 
which  there  were  not  hundreds  of  Bishops,  scattered  over  the  whole 
known  world.  And  since  the  Church  every  where  required  that  a 
Bishop  should  be  Ordained  by  three  or  more  Bishops,  and  which 
was  always  done  in  public  and  after  due  election,  it  was  impossible 
for  any  one  not  Rightly  Ordained,  to  assume  and  exercise  the  office 
without  detection.  This  will  appear  indubitable  to  any  one  who 
considers  whether  such  an  imposture  could  succeed  now.  Suppose 
some  Layman  or  Presbyter  were  to  claim  Episcopal  Authority — 
would  our  Church  receive  him  as  a  Bishop?  Would  any  of  our 
People  accept  Orders  or  even  Confirmation  at  his  hands?  INo.  He 
would  be  at  once  advertised  as  an  impostor,  and  covered  with  dis- 
grace and  infamy.  But  suppose  he  were  to  attempt  to  exercise  the 
Episcopal  Prerogatives  elsewhere?  Would  it  not  be  equally  im- 
possible for  him  to  succeed  in  passing  himself  oflT  as  a  genuine 
Bishop  ?  I  know  he  might  get  up  a  party  or  sect  that  would  ac- 
knov/ledge  him  as  a  Bishop,  in  some  sense  of  the  word — but  the 
Church  would  not  forget  the  illegitimacy  of  his  origin,  and  would 
not  receive  him  to  her  Communion,  until  he  renounced  his  false 
claims.  History  would  not  fail  to  record,  when,  where  and  how, 
both  he  and  his  sect  arose.  But  we  need  not  suppose  a  case.  We 
have  at  least  one  fact  now  before  us.  Nearly  sixty  years  ago,  a 
Presbyter  by  the  name  of  Coke,  pretenedd  to  be  a  Bishop,  laid  his 
hands  on  other  men,  and  pretended  to  make  them  Bishops  likewise. 
Was  he  ever  acknowledged  by  the  Church  as  a  Bishop  ?     Did  he 


*The  Council  of  Aries  (A.  D.  314)  which  was  attended  by 
British  Bishops,  required  by  their  27th  Canon,  that  a  Bishop  should 
not  be  Ordained,  except  by  at  least  three  other  Bishops.  Cyprian, 
(A.  D.  259;  states  that  such  was  the  custom  in  his  time.  And  the 
Apostolical  Canons,  which  date  further  back  still,  contain  a  similar 
injunction,  (Canon  1.)  These  facts  render  it  exceedingly  probable 
that  this  usage  prevailed  from  the  beginning.  Tsie  Apostolical 
Canons  are  said  to  have  been  composed  by  St,  Clement,  from  the 
dictate  of  the  Apostles. 


63 

not  state,  in  his  letters  upon  the  subject  of  his  return  to  the  Church, 
that  he  was  willing  to  submit  to  what  the  Church  would  require — i. 
re-Ordination?  Again :  Has  time  effaced  the  remembrance  of  the 
spuriousness  of  his  claims  ?  Is  the  Ordination  which  he  conferred 
upon  others  yet  acknowleded  by  the  Church  to  be  valid?  No. 
and  never  will  be.  Every  Methodist  Preacher  who  enters  our 
Ministry,  enters  it  like  any  other  Layman — ihurogh  the  humble  door 
of  the  Deaconship.  The  Letters  of  Wesley  and  Coke,  and  all  other 
documents  relating  to  the  alleged  Ordination,  are  already  Recorded 
upon  the  page  of  History,  and  they  will  descend  lo  the  latest  Po8- 
terity.  But  there  are  other  similar  facts  of  still  more  weight, 
because  extending  back  much  further.  About  300  years  ago 
Luther  a  Presbyter,  and  Calvin  a  Layman,  usurped  the  Episcopal 
Authority.  The  Ordination  which  they  conferred,  was  then  con- 
sidered invalid  by  all  the  Old  Churches  of  the  Age.*  Have  these 
Churches  since  recognized  its  validity  ?  No,  and  never  will.  No 
one  who  traces  his  Orders  to  these  men.  would  be  acknowledged  as 
a  valid  Minister,  by  an  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  or  in 
England,  or  in  Russia,  or  in  Greece,  or  in  Denmark,  or  in  India, 
or  any  other  part  of  the  world.  If,  then,  it  has  been  impossible 
for  any  one,  not  Ordained  by  a  Bishop,  to  pass  himself  off  as  a 
genuine  Presbyter  or  Bishop  during  the  last  three  centuries— jt 
must  have  been  equally  impossible  in  any  preceding  Age,  since  the 
same  regulations  and  restrictions  have  always  prevailed.  Conse- 
quently, it  is  a  moral  certainty  that  the  Succession  is  unbroken. 

The  present  Bishops  of  the  Church  are  assured  that  they 
were  Ordained  by  those  who  had  been  validly  Ordained.  Those 
who  Ordained  them  had  the  same  assurance  ;  and  their  predecessers 
had  the  same  assurance,  and  so  <m,  up  to  the  Apostles.  In  everv 
period,  the  usurper  of  Ministerial  authority  was  sure  to  be  detected 
and  exposed,  as  there  were  the  same  motives,  and  the  same  princi- 
ples, and  the  same  laws  operating,  to  guard  the  Episcopal  office  from 
intruders.  Let  our  opponents  prove  that  any  Bishop,  upon  whom 
our  Succession  depends,  was  not  validly  Consecrated ;  for  when  a 
person  alleges  that  principles  and  regulations  were  disregarded  by 
any  branch  of  the  Church  that  acknowledged  them,  the  burden  of 
PROOF  devolves  on  him.  But  this  cannot  be  done.  Mr.  A.  has  tried 
it,  but  failed  completely.  He  has  given  nothing  but  unsupported  as- 
sertions— assertions,  too,  which,  if  true,  would  not  "refute"  the  Suc- 
cession. For,  let  the  reader  note,  that  even  if  it  were  proved  that 
any  particular  Bishop  was  not  validly  Ordained,  it  would  not  neces- 

*■  Hooker,  the  able  Champion  of  Episcopacy,  who  wrote  in  1594, 
thus  addresses' the  innovaters  of  his  day:  *'We  require  you  to  find 
out  BUT  one  Church  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  thai 
hath  been  Ordered  by  your  Discipline,  or  hath  not  been  ordered  bv 
ours,  that  is  to  say,  by  Episcopal  Regimen,  since  the  time  that 
the  Blessed  Apostles  were  here  Conversant."  Two  Centuries  and 
a  half  have  rolled  away  and  this  challenge  remains  unanswered ! 


64 

sarily  impair  the  Succession — for  these  reasons  :  First,  There  have 
been  Bishops  who  kever  took  part  in  the  Ordination  of  other 
Bishops,  and  such  might  have  been  the  case  with  that  particular  Bi- 
shop.    Second,  According  to   a  rule  established   by  the  Council  of 
Nice,  and  prevailing  long  before,  three  or   more  Bishops  united  in 
conferring   Consecration.     Consequendy,  if  one  of  ilieni    had  been 
destitute  of  valid  l/onsecration,  the  others  would  have  been  sufficient 
to  transmit  the  Episcopal  authority.     But,  it  has  never  bhen  pro- 
ved that  even  a   single  Bishop,   acknowledged  as  such  by   the 
Church,  was  not  truly  Consecrated.     The  fact  that  it  has  always  been 
a  matter,  both  of  custom  and  of  law,  for  sundry  Bishops  to  assist  at 
the  Consecration  of  another,  imparts  to  the  Succession  a  degree  of 
security  and  certainty  which   must  prevent  the   least  suspicion  in  a 
reasonable  and  candid  man.     If  there  had  been  but  one  Bishop  at  a 
lime  in   the  Church,  the  Succession  would   always  have  depended 
upon  the  validity  of  the    Consecration  of  that  one    man ;  and  there- 
fore, there  would  have   been  some  room  for  doubt.     But  there  have 
always  been  hundreds  of  Bishops,  and  if  the  Succession  had   failed 
by  the  death  of  a  Bishop,  or   otherwise,  in  any  given  portion  of  the 
Church,  it  was  easy  to  recover  it  again.     Before  the  Revolution,  our 
Clergy  were  Ordained  by  Bishops  in  England  :  and  when  it  became 
necessary  for  us  to   have  a  Bishop,  Dr.  White  was  elected  and  sent 
over  to  England  for  the  Episcopal  Succession — where  he   was  duly 
Consecrated  by   four    Bishops.     Three    other  Clergymen   of   our 
Church  were  likewise  Consecrated  abroad.    So  that  no  Consecration 
was  performed  by  Bishop  White  in  this  Country  until  he  had  three 
other  Bishops  to  assist  him.     And  in  many  instances,  in  this  Country 
and  in  England,  five,  six,^an(]  even  seven  Bishops,  have  united  in  the 
same    Consecration.      This   is   an   important   circumstance   in  the 
aro-ument,  and  yet  it  is  often  overlooked  by  those   who  deny  the 
Succession.     They  view  it  as  if  descending  by  a  single  line,  and 
consequently  they  conclude  that  it  is  as  uncertain  as  the  Succession 
of  the  Popes.     But  there  are  several  lines  or  chains,  involving  at 
every  link  a  considerable  number  of  Bialiops.   Three  is  the  smallest 
number  allowed  to  Consecrate — though  in  many  instances  the  num- 
ber was  larger — now,  of  course,  every  Bishop  engaged  in  the  Con- 
secration gives  it  additional  security:  Any  given  Bishop  was  Ordained 
by  three  others.     Each  of  these  three  had  three  others,  which  make 
nine  at  the  second  step.     Each  of  these  nine  had  three  likewise, 
which  is  27  at  the  third  step,  and  so  on  in  three  fold  proportion.    It 
is  true,  some  of  these  assisted  in  Consecrating  the  same  men ;  but 
after   all  reasonable  reduction,  it  is  still  certain  that  hundreds  of 
Bishops  have  concurred  in  transmitting  the  Apostolical  Succession  to 
each  and  every  Bishop  of  our  Church.     Here,  then,  are  securities 
almost  infinite  in  number.     And  surely,  to  doubt  in  such  a  case  is 
skepticism  indeed. 

As  difl'erent  Apostles  founded  different  branches  of  the  Church, 
the  difi'erent  branches  trace  their  Succession  to  diflferent  Apostles, 
and  through  diflferent  lines.    Thus,  the  Greeks  trace  their  line  to  St. 


65 


Paul — the  Syrians  and  Nestorians,  to  St.  Thomas,  and  the  English 
Church,  and  the  American  Church  to  St.  John.  I  will  now  comply 
with  TertuUian's  test — "  Unroll  our  list  of  Bishops,"  and  prove 
our  Apostolic  descent.  Bishop  White  (through  whom  our  present 
Bishops  have  received  the  Episcopal  Commission)  was  Consecrated 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  assisted  by  others.  By  the 
following  list,  we  trace  the  Succession  from  the  "  beloved"  Apostle 
St.  John,  through  the  Episcopate  of  I^yons,  in  France,  and  that  of 
Canterbury,  in  England,  down  to  Bishop  White  : 


ST.  JOHN. 

St.      assisted  by   ^Etherius,  31st 

1  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna. 

John    Bishop  of  Lyons 

» 

Bishops  of  Lyons. 

34  Lawrence,                A.  D.  605 

1  Pothinus. 

35  Mellitus, 

"     619 

2  Ireneus. 

36  Justus, 

"     624 

3  Zacharias. 

37  Honorius, 

"     634 

4  Elias. 

38  Adeodatus, 

"     654 

5  Faustinus. 

39  Theodore, 

*'     668 

6  Verus. 

40  Brithwald, 

"     693 

7  Julius. 

41   Tatwine, 

"     731 

8  Ptolemy. 

42  Nothelm, 

"     735 

9  Vocius. 

43  Cuthbert, 

"     742 

10  Maximus. 

44  Bregwin, 

"     759 

11  Tetradus. 

45  Lambert, 

"     763 

12  Verissimus. 

46  iEthelred,  1. 

"     793 

13  Justus. 

47  Wulfred, 

"     803 

14  Albinus. 

48  Theogild  or  Feogild, 

"     830 

15  Martin. 

Consecrated,  June  5th, 

16  Antiochus 

and  died  Sept.  3d. 

17  Elpidius. 

49  Coelnoth,  Sept. 

"     830 

18  Sicarius. 

50  iEthelred,  2d, 

"     871 

19  Eucherius,   1, 

51  Phlegmund, 

''     891 

20  Patiens. 

52  Athelum,  or  Adelm, 

"     923 

21   Lupicnus. 

53  Wulfelm, 

"     928 

22  Rusticus. 

54  Odo  Severus, 

"     941 

23  Stephanus. 

55  Dunstan, 

"     959 

24  Viventiolus. 

56  iEthelgar, 

"     988 

25  Eucherius,  2. 

57  Siricus, 

"     989 

26  Lupus. 

58  Aluricus,  or  Alfricus, 

"     996 

27  Licontius, 

59  Elphege,                 A. 

D.  1005 

28  Sacerdos. 

60  Living,  or  Leoning, 

29  Nicetus. 

or  Elkskan, 

"  1013 

30  Prisons. 

31  Agelnoth,  or  iEthelot 

"   1020 

31  iExHERius,  A.  D.  589.             ( 

32  Edsin,  or  Elsin, 

"   1038 

CANTERBURY.             {( 

33  Robert  Gemeticensis, 

"  1050 

.32  A.  D.  596.    Augustine,  Mis-  ( 

54  Stigand, 

"  lOS* 

sionary  to  the  Anglo  Saxons,  ( 

)5  Lanfranc, 

'*  lOTO 

33d   was  Consecrated  by  Virgi-!6 

16  Anselm, 

«  1093 

from  Lius,  24th   Bishop  of  Aries, 

5* 

66 


1122 
1138 
1162 
1174 
1184 
1191 
1193 
1207 
1229 
"  U34 
"  1245 
"  1272 
"  1278 
"  1294 
"  1313 
"  1328 
"  1333 
"  1348 
"  1349 
"  1366 
"  1368 
"  1374 
"  1381 
"  1396 


D. 

1501 

(( 

1530 

(I 

1533 

(( 

li)55 

u 

1559 

(( 

1573 

C( 

1583 

(( 

1604 

ii 

1611 

a 

1633 

*• 

1660 

-  (( 

1663 

(( 

1677 

a 

1691 

ii 

1694 

u 

1715 

(( 

1737 

(. 

1738 

u 

1747 

n 

1757 

S," 

1768 

u 

1783 

-CONTINUED. 

97  Henry  Dean,   A. 

98  William  Wareham, 

99  Thomas  Ceanmer, 

100  Reginald  Pole, 

101  Matthew  Parker, 

102  Ed.  Grindall,  Dec. 

103  John  Whitgift, 

104  Richard  Bancroft, 

105  George  Abbott, 

106  William  Laud, 

107  William  Jiixon, 

108  Gilbert  Sheldon, 

109  William  Sancroft, 

110  John  Tillotson, 

111  Thomas  Tennison, 

112  William  Wake, 

113  John  Potter, 

114  Thomas  Seeker, 

115  Thomas  Herring, 

116  Matthew  Hutton, 

117  Frederick  Cornwallis," 

118  John  Moore, 

119  From  St.  John,  is  William 
White,  of  Pennsylvania,  Conse- 
crated   February    4th,    1787,   by 

1414'  John  Moore,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  assisted  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  the  Bishop  of 
Bath  and  Wells,  and  the  Bishop 
of  Peterborough. 

But  let  the  reader  note  that  there  are  not  only  several  lines,  but 
each  line  is  a  three-fold  cord.  Each  of  the  above  named  Successors, 
had  three  or  more  Consecrators,  so  that  if  any  doubt  could  be  raised 
as  to  any  one  of  them,  there  are  two  or  three  others  to  continue  the 
chain;  indeed,  as  before  remarked,  many  more  in  most  cases.  It 
has  very  rarely  happened  that  the  Succession  depended  upon  three 
or  four  Bishops ;  and  then  only  in  o?ie  branch  of  the  Church — for 
as  before  remarked,  the  Succession  descends  in  various,  distinct, 
and  INDEPENDENT  liucs — in  America,  England,  Russia,  Greece,  &c., 
&;c.  In  the  line  given  in  the  above  list,  it  has  happened,  I  believe, 
but  two  or  three  times — and  yet,  in  neither,  of  those  few  instances, 
can  it  proved,  that  a  single  man  had  not  been  truly  Consecrated. 
One  of  those  instances  occurred  at  the  first  Consecration  in  this 
country.  Let  us  contemplate  it  a  moment,  and  we  shall  see  that 
even  the  weakest  part  of  this  chain,  is  svperbiindantly  strong. 
The  first  Clergyman  Consecrated  in  this  country  was  Bishop 
Cleggett.  He  had  four  Consecrators,  viz  :  Provost,  Seabury, 
White  and  Madison.     If  it  could  be  proved   that  three  of  these  had 


CANTERBURY- 

67  Rodulph,  A.  D.   1114 

68  William  Corbell, 

69  Theobold, 

70  Thomas  a  Beckett,     " 

71  Richard, 

72  Baldwin  Fordensis,    " 

73  Reginald  FitzJoceline" 

74  Hubert  Walten, 

75  Stephen  Langton,       ^' 

76  Richard  Wethersfield,*' 

77  Edmund,  " 

78  Boniface, 

79  Robert  Kilwarby,       " 

80  John  Peokham,  " 

81  Robert  Winchesley,  " 

82  Walter  Reynold, 

83  Simon  Mepham,         " 

84  John  Stratford,  " 

85  Thos.  Bradwardine,  " 

86  Simon  Islip,  " 

87  Simon  Langham,       " 

88  Wm.  Whittlesey, 

89  Simon  Subbury,         " 

90  William  Courtnay,     " 

91  Thomas  Arundel, 

92  Henry  Chichely, 

93  John  Staflford,  "  1443 

94  John  Kemp,  "  1452 

95  Thomas  Bourcher,     "  1454 

96  John  Morton,  "  1486 


67 

aiever  been  Consecrated,  th-e  remaining  one  would  have  conveyed 
the  Succession.  But,  as  I  before  remarked,  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
•even  one  of  them  was  not  Consecrated  ;  and  if  we  follow  the  four- 
fold cord  backwards,  the  strands  multiply  at  every  step,  until  they 
become  almost  innumerable.  In  the  Consecration  of  these  four, 
nine  other  Bishops  were  concerned,  (whose  names  I  omit  for  the 
sake  of  brevity;)  and  in  the  Consecration  of  these  nine,  twenty-two 
were  concerned — thus  they  increase  in  almost  three-fold  proportion. 
As  there  were  nine  at  the  S'econd  link,  there  were  eight  more  than 
were  necessary  to  continue  the  Succession  ;  and  at  the  third  link, 
since  there  were  twenty-two,  there  were  twenty-one  more  than  ne- 
cessary. But  this  is  hardly  a  full  representation  of  the  rate  of  in- 
<jrease.  If  I  were  to  go  back  further,  which  I  might  easily  do,  as 
the  names  and  dates  are  new  before  me,  I  think  it  would  appear  that 
the  average  increase  is  fully  three-fold  ;  for  sometimes  five  individu- 
als have  united  in  a  Consecration,  and  never  less  than  three.  But 
even  at  a  two-fold  increase,  the  lines  multiply  amazingly.  This 
may  be  illustrated  in  the  following  manner  :  Let  A  represent  the  first 
Bishop  Consecrated  in  this  country,  and  the  numbers  below,  the 
CJonsecrators.  Then  the  final  numbers  on  the  right  hand  of  each  line, 
will  denote  the  aggregate  of  those  concerned  in  A's  Consecration, 
at  each  step : 

A 

12  34 

5  67  8  9  10  11  12 

13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28 

29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 

48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60 
Thus,  at  the  first  step,  there  were  four ;  at  the  second,  twelve  ;  at 
the  third,  twenty-eight,  and  at  the  fourth,  sixty.  Thus,  by  the  time 
we  reach  the  fourth  step,  we  find  that  sixty  Bishops  have  been  instru- 
mental in  conv^eying  the  Succession  down  to  the  first  Bishop  Conse- 
crated in  this  country,  by  the  lowest  calculation.  How  utterly  im- 
possible, then,  that  there  could  have  been  such  a  break  as  to  destroy 
the  whole  !  If  men  will  not  believe  with  such  securities,  I  see  not 
how  they  can  believe  anything  of  a  historical  nature. 

But  it  is  often  objected,  that  many  of  these  Bishops  were  wicked 
men.  It  is  easy  to  refute  that  objection.  Was  not  Balaam  a  wicked 
man  ? — and  yet  he  was  a  true  Prophet.  Was  not  David  guilty  of 
murder  and  adultery  ? — yet,  though  punished  for  these  oflfences,  he 
was  still  allowed  to  wield  the  sceptre  of  a  Kingdom  under  God's  di- 
rect and  special  control,  and  ultimately  to  deliver  it  into  the 
hands  of  his  son  biolomon.  David  and  Solomon  were  both 
wicked  men ;  and  yet  their  compositions  form  a  portion  of  the  Inspi- 
red Canon.  Were  not  many  of  the  High  Priests  wicked  men  ? — 
and  did  they  not  often  obtain  the  office  by  Simony  ?  Yet  they  trans- 
mitted the  Succession  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood  to  the  days  of  the 
Saviour.  Once  more  :  Was  not  Judas  a  wicked  man  ? — and  yet  he 
was  a  duly  and  fully  commissioned  Apostle.     Like  the  other  Apos- 


68 

ties,  he  Preached  the  Gospel,  performed  Miracles,  and  did  otheK" 
things  as  a  Minister  of  Christ — nor  was  his  place  supplied  until  his 
death.  If,  then,  such  a  man  filled  the  office,  and  performed  the  func- 
tions of  an  Apostle,  even  in  the  days  of  the  Saviour,  surely  the  same 
could  have  been  done  in  any  subsequent  Age.  It  was  not  piety  that 
authorized  these  men  to  act  as  Apostles — it  was  the  Commission,  or 
Ordination,  of  the  Saviour  :  so,  ever  since,  it  is  the  Commission  that 
empowers  a  man  to  act  in  Christ's  stead,  as  an  officer  of  his  Church, 
If  piety  made  a  man  a  Minister,  then  every  pious  man  would  be  one — 
every  pious  man  could  administer  the  Sacraments.  But  this  is  not  al- 
lowed by  any  Denomination.  Of  course,  no  man  should  be  admitted  to 
the  Sacred  Office  without  piety  ;  but  as  soon  as  he  is  validly  Ordain- 
ed, he  is  a  true  Minister  of  the  Church — just  as  Judas  was  a  true 
Apostle — and  must  remain  so,  until  he  is  deposed.  Whatever  he 
does  by  virtue  of  his  Ordination,  whether  he  administers  the  Sacra- 
ments, or  confers  Orders,  it  is  perfectly  valid.  The  contrary  cannot 
be  maintained  without  contradicting  Scripture  facts,  and  involving 
ourselves,  as  Christians,  in  the  greatest  dilemma.  For  if  no  man  is 
a  true  Minister  unless  he  is  pious,  then  it  is  impossible  to  tell  with 
certainty  who  is  one.  The  Minister  may  think  himself  pious,  when 
he  is  not — or  he  may  even  pretend  to  be,  when  he  knows  he  is  not : 
And  since  Christians  cannot  read  the  hearts  of  their  Pastor,  they 
can  have  no  certainty  that  he  is  pious  ;  and  consequently,  no  cer- 
tainty that  he  is  a  Minister,  although  listening  to  his  teachings,  and 
receiving  the  Sacraments  at  his  hands — at  least  they  think  so — for,  if 
it  all  depends  upon  the  reality  of  their  Pastor's  piety,  they  do  not 
know  whether  they  have  been  Baptised  or  not.  And  thus  the 
Christian  would  be  in  a  state  of  continual  and  utter  uncertainty  re- 
specting these  most  important  questions — whether  his  Pastor  is  a  valid 
Minister,  and  whether  he  has  truly  partaken  of  the  Sacraments.  But 
the  case  of  Judas,  alone,  utterly  destroys  the  force  of  that  objection, 
for  it  is  recorded  that  he  was  "  a  thief,"  while  an  Apostle.  And  the 
case  of  Peter,  also,  I  may  add  :  Did  he  not  deny  his  Master  ? — was 
he  not  guilty  of  repeated  falsehoods  and  oaths  ? — and  yet  he  remain- 
ed an  Apostle,  and  a  most  distinguished  Apostle,  to  the  day  of  his 
death.  He^  together  with  the  other  Apostles,  conferred  the  Jiposto- 
lical  authority  upon  Matthias,  and  others. 


60 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


No  Succession  Except  through  Episcopal  Bishops — Episcopul 
Claims  not  Arrogant — No  Case  of  Presbyterian  Ordination 
from  the  Apostles  to  the  Reformation — In  zvhat  Sense  our  Bi- 
shops are  Successors  of  the  Apostles — Dissenting  Preachers 
Claim  the  Same  Powers — An  External  Commission  Necessary 
— The  Plea  of  Success  Examined — Internal  Persuasion  no 
Proof  to  the  People. 

The  reader  has  seen  that  the  Principle  of  Succession  is  sometimes 
advocated  by  non-Episcopalians,  also  :  and  indeed,  it  is  acted  upon 
by  most  of  them,  since  it  is  implied  by  the  very  practice  of  Ordina- 
tion, which  prevails  among  them  also.  For  what  is  Ordination,  but 
a  transmission  of  Ministerial  authotity  ?  But  in  order  that  a  man 
may  transmit  such  authority,  he  must  have  previously  received  it 
himself— and  this  implies  Succession.  Thus,  they  agree  with  us  in 
theory.  Those  who  maintain  the  principle — who  claim  the  Succes- 
sion —differ  from  us,  however,in  one  important  particular.  They  be- 
lieve that  the  Apostles  committed  this  authority  originally  to  the  Presby- 
ters, and  that,  though  for  many  centuries  none  exercised  itbutthose  call- 
ed Bishops,  yet  that  it  belongs  to  the  Presbyters  ;  and  that,  therefore, 
they  can  exercise  it.  But  there  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  a  sin- 
gle case  of  Ordination  by  a  mere  Presbyter.  I  have  proved,!  trust, 
that  this  authority  was  committed  to  a  class  of  men  who  were  over 
the  Presbyters.  But  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  Presbyters  pos- 
sessed this  authority,  originally,  it  would  avail  nothing — they  are 
still  without  the  Succession,  for  this  reason:  They  admit  that  in  the 
second  or  third  century,  this  authority  was  committed  only  to  a  few 
of  those  Presebyters  called  Bishops;  and  consequently,  when  the 
original  Presbyters  had  all  died,  the  Ordaining  power  concentrated 
in  these  few,  and  they  only  could  transmit  it.  And  since  they  did 
not  confer  it  upon  those  who  retained  the  name  of  Presbyters,  it  be- 
came their  exclusive  prerogative — henceforth,  they  were  the  only 
original  Presbyters,  and  therefore  the  only  officers  who  possessed 
the  authority  ;  and  consequently,  the  only  persons  who  could  possi- 
bly confer  it.  And  thus,  according  to  their  own  theory,  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  the  only  genuine  Presbyters  were  those  called 
Bishops ;  and  as  neither  Luther  nor  Calvin  belonged  to  that  class, 
they  were  destitute  of  this  authority,  and  therefore  could  not  transmit 
jt  to  their  present  followers :  and  Wesley  and  his  followers  are  in 
the  same  predicament,  as  those  called  Bishops  in  his  day,  were  like- 
wise the  only  genuine  and  original  Presbyters.  For  these  reasons  it 
is  evident,  that  whether  the  three  Orders  be  in  the  New  Testament 
or  not.  Episcopal  Bishops  are  the  sole  possessers  of  the  Ordaining 
Authority. 

But  these   claims  are  denounced   as  "  arrogant."     That  depends 
upon  their  truth.     Every  one  knows  that  only  the  Bishops  exercised 


70 

this  authority  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  for  eentnries  be- 
fore ;  and  if  any  man  sets  up  a  rival  claim,  surely  he  is  bound  to- 
prove  his  title  to  it.  And  there  is  no  clear  case  of  Presbyterian  Or- 
dination in  the  New  Testament,  and  none  allowed  by  the  Church  to 
be  valid,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Keformaiion.  Our  opposers  have 
diligently  searched  the  New  Testament,  and  the  records  of  History,, 
in  vain  for  such  a  case  :  and  at  the  same  time,  we  can  produce  from 
History  positive  proof  that  the  Early  Church  considered  such  Or- 
dination a  nullity.  In  the  fourth  century,  a  Presbyter  named  Colluthus 
pretended  to  Ordain  Ischirus,  to  the  same  office  ;  but  the  Synod  of  Alex- 
andria declared  the  Ordination  null  and  void.  (Apud.  Athanas.  Apalog. 
2  Epist.  Presb.  et  Diacon.  Mareotic.  ad  Curiosum  et  Philagrium.)  And 
when  the  blind  Bishop  of  Agabra  imposed  his  hands  to  confer  Orders, 
while  his  Presbyters  read  the  words,  the  Ordination  was  pronounced 
invalid  by  the  first  Council  of  Sevil.  (Cap  5.)  Two  or  three  more 
cases  could  be  given.  And  surely  nothing  could  prove  more  con- 
clusively that  Presbyters  have  not  the  Ordaining  authority,  than  these 
decisions  of  the  Early  Church.  And  if  the  Early  Church  repeatedly 
condemned  Presbyterian  Ordination,  why  should  we  be  censured  for 
doing  likewise  ?  If  the  Primitive  Church  declared  such  Ordination 
null,  and  refused  to  allow  those  who  claimed  it  to  perform  Ministe- 
rial functions,  surely  our  Church  has  good  authority  for  her  regula- 
tions in  this  matter.  She  pretends  not  to  interfere  with  those  with- 
out her  fold,  but  she  is  careful  to  preserve  her  own  Communion  from 
unlawful  ministrations.  And  as  1  have  shown,  even  now  she  is  not 
alone  in  this  respect — six-sevenths  of  Christendom  are  with  her. 

But  our  Bishops  are  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  only  as  to 
their  Ordinary  powers — powers  of  Ordination  and  Superintendence. 
Their  extraordinary,  or  miraculous  powers,  of  course,  they  do  not 
claim.  I  have  already  proved,  I  think,  that  there  were  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Age,  other  Apostles  beside  the  Twelve — that  Timothy  and  Titus 
tus  were  such, and  consequently  Successors  of  the  original  Twelve  ;  and 
yet  there  is  no  evidence  that  Timothy  and  Titus  performed  Miracles. 
But  if  they  did  possess  the  power  of  working  Miracles,  it  is  obvious 
that  it  was  not  that  power  that  constituted  them  A posdes— ^because 
that  power  was  possessed  by  Stephen,  (Acts,  6  :  8,)  who  was  but  a 
Deacon,  and,  indeed,  most  probably  by  some  of  the  laity.  Our  Bi- 
shops are  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  sense  in  which  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus  were— the  inheritors  of  all  the  ordinary,  peculiar, 
and  permanent  powers  of  the  Apostolic  office. 

Our  opponents,  having  found  it  impossible  to  disprove  the  Succes- 
sion, attempt  to  render  it  odious,  by  representing  it  as  conferring 
enormous  and  dangerous  powers.  Were  the  powers  of  the  Apostles^ 
then,  dangerous  ?  Did  our  Lord  invest  them  with  prerogatives  which 
are  "  destructive  of  liberty  ?"  Here  is  another  instance  in  which,, 
instead  of  wounding  us,  they  wound  the  holy  Religion  which  they 
profess.  And  after  all  their  out-cry  against  these  powers,  they  claim 
the  very  same  for  themselves  !  Yes,  they  claim  just  as  much  autho- 
rity and  power  as  Episcopal  Bishops,  and  some  of  them  even  more ! 


71 

What  powers  does  our  Miniistry  derive  from  the  Succession  ?  Only 
those  assigned  to  the  Ministry  in  Scripture — Preaching,  Ordination, 
Discipline,  and  administration  of  the  ^acraments.  Do  not  the  Prea- 
■chers  of  all  Denominations  claim,  and  pretend  to  exercise  all  these? 
Every  one  knows  they  do.  The  Succession  constitutes  us  Ministers 
of  Christ;  and  they  believe  and  profess  themselves  the  same.  So 
far,  then,  as  pretension^  fo  authority  are  concerned,  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  us — the  only  difference  is  in  the  title.  The  only 
proof  they  can  give  to  sustain  their  pretensions,  is  the  fallible  per- 
suasion of  their  own  minds.  Our  proof  is  the  Commission,  derived 
by  regular  Succession,  from  the  inspired  Apostles.  This  is  the 
■difference   between  us,  on  this  point. 

We  believe,  of  course,  that  a  man  should  be  prompted  to  under- 
take this  responsible  office  by  the  Divine  Spirit;  but  we  maintain 
that,  besides  that,  he  must  have  an  external  commission  before  he 
can  be  a  true  Minister  of  the  Church.*  And  have  we  not  authority 
in  Scripture  for  this  1  What  does  St.  Paul  say?  "  No  man  taketh 
this  office  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron." 
Aaron  was  externally  appointed — was  "consecrated,"  by  Moses — 
who  had  received  authority  from  God.  And  all  the  Priests  were 
•similarly  set  apart  by  God's  express  injunction,  before  they  Minis 
tered  lo  the  People.  "  No  man  taketh  this  office  unto  himself," 
says  Scripture.  No ;  the  office  must  be  given  to  him,  in  a  visible 
manner,  by  those  who  have  authority.  This  is  the  ordinary  way  of 
God's  appointment.  There  is  but  one  other  way — by  "  direct,  or 
miraculous  appointment"  of  God — 'Such  as  St.  Paul  received. 
These  two,  are  the  only  modes  of  receiving  the  Ministerial  Com- 
mission mentioned  in  the  Bible.  The  eleven  Apostles  set  apart 
Matthias — afterwards,  they  Ordained  by  imposition  of   hands,   the 


*  "Is  it  not  being  wise  above  what  is  written,  to  say,  when  God 
has  called  asd  given  authority,  there  is  no  need  of  Ordination  or  au- 
thority from  man  ?  I  would  just  ask  the  objector — why,ihen,  when 
Ood  had  called  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  the  work,  did  He  command 
the  ("hurch  to  separate  them  to  Him  for  that  very  work:  and  why 
did  they,  in  obedience, /rrs^,  pray,  and  lay  hands  upon  ihem?''^ 
(Dr.  Clarke's  Comment.  Acts,  13  :  3.) 

Dr.  Clarke  was  unfortunately  in  a  false  position,  and  consequently 
his  conduct  was  at  variance  with  his  opinions. 

Not  long  before  his  death,  he  made  the  following  statements  :  "  / 
reverence  the  Liturgy  next  to  the  Bible.'"'  "  But  I  Preach,  and 
have  long  Preached,  without  any  kind  of  Episcopal  Orders.  My 
family  fell  into  decay,  and  my  education  was  left  imperfect.  I  would 
greatly  have  preferred  the  hands  of  the  Bishop,  but  not  having 
gone  through  the  regular  courses,  I  could  not  claim  it.  Even 
now.  at  this  age  of  comparative  decrepitude,  I  would  rejoice  to 
HAVE  THAT  Ordination,  if  I  might,  with  it,  have  the  full  liberty  to 
Preach  Jesus,  wherever  I  could  find  souls  perishing  for  the  lack  of 
knowledge."     (See  Christian  Guardian,  Dec.  1832.) 


72 

seven  Deacons,  and  then  "  Elders  in  every   city."     Timothy  and 
Titus  Ordained  others  in  the  same  manner  ;  and  it  cannot  be  proved 
that  any  man  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles   performed  the  Ministerial 
functions,  unless  he  vi^as  first  set  apart  in  this  way  by  the  Apostles, 
or  miraculously  appointed,  as  St.  Paul.     It  cannot  be   proved  from 
the  New  Testament,  that  any  man  was   allowed   to  perform  these 
functions,  in  consequence  of  merely  an  internal  persuasion — conse- 
quently,   Scripture  gives   no  sanction   to  the    pretensions  of  those 
Preachers  who  can  give  no  proof  but  an  inward  call.   And  therefore, 
unless  they  receive  the  Commission  in  the  ordinary  way — by  external 
appointment  received  from  those  who  are  authorised — they  are  com- 
pelled to  prove  their  claims,  as  Moses  did — by  Miracles.  But  they  say- 
that  they  do  work  Miracles  ;  they  convert  sinners  from  the  error  of  their 
ways.     All  this  is  very  plausible — but  unfortunately,  it  will  not  bear 
examination.     In  the  first  place,  a  man  must  prove  his  title  before 
he  enters  upon  an  ofi[ice.     But  how  is  it  with  them  ?     They  enter 
upon  the  office  before  they  give  the  proof!     They  Preach,  Baptise, 
(fee,  before  they  can  point  to  the  Fruits  which  they  call  Miracles — 
which  is  exercising  the  Office  before  they  have  proved  their  title  ! 
They  pretend  to  be  sent  by  God  to  proclaim  Pardon  and  Salvation  to 
a  rebellious  race.     And,  of  course,  it  is  requisite  that  they  show  their 
warrant  before  they  proceed  to  declare  the  principles  and  condi- 
tions  of  reconcilation.     This  consideration  alone  shows  the  utter 
insufficiency  of  an  appeal  to  fruits.     But  again :  These  Conversions 
are  not  Miracles.     If  it  be  said,  they  are  beyond  the  power  of  man, 
they  are    certainly  performed  by  the  Power  of  God  ;  H'e  grant   it, 
and  still  deny  that  they  are  Miracles.     Is  not  vegetation  performed 
by  the  Power  of  God  ?     And  yet,  who  would  think  of  calling  it  a 
Miracle?      Are  not  all  the  operations  of  Nature  performed  by  the 
Power  of  God?      And  yet,   who    would   call   them   Miracles?     A 
Miracle  is  a  deviation  from  the  usual  course  of  Divine  Providence, 
effected  by  visible  agency,  naturally  inadequate.     Is  the  conversion 
of  a  sinner  such?     No.  That  cannot  be  a  deviation  from  the  usual 
course  which  is  occurring  every  day.  Is  it  effected  by  such  an  agency? 
No.  It  is  effected  when  genuine,  not  by  the  Preacher,  but   by  the 
"  Word  of  God,  which  is  the  Sword  of  the  Spirit."     Hence,  says 
St.  James,  "  Receive  with  meekness  the  engrafted   word  tvhich  is 
able  to  save  your  Souls.''''     But  it  is  said,  *'  If  these  men  were  not 
duly  commissioned,  surely  God  would  not  render  his  word  effectual 
when  Preached  by  them."     But  this  assumes  that  God  would  work 
a   Miracle  to  testify  that  these  men  are  not  acting  agreeably  to  his 
arrangement.     For  as  Scripture    teaches,  and  all  Christians  believe, 
the  word  of  God  is  designed,  and  adapted  to  convert  souls — in  other 
words,  that  it  is  the  fixed  order  of  his  Providence,  that  the  word 
shall  convert  and  save  when  it  falls  into  good  and  honest  hearts : 
consequently,  if  this  effect  were  not  to  follow,  it  would  be  a  devia- 
tion from  the  established  course  of  things  ;  and  therefore,  a  Miracle. 
And   is    it  not    utterly   unreasonable    to   expect   God   to   interfere 
miraculously  to  express  his  disapprobation  ?     Does  he  thus  interfere 


73 

to  vindicate  his  other  arrangements  and  laws  ?     He  does  not  inter- 
fere, even  when  men  claiming  to  be  his  Ministers,  preach  the  most 
destructive  heresies.  At  the  beginnings  God  did  interpose  in  one  or 
two  instances.     When  Korah  and  others  endeavored  to  intrude  into 
the   Prieshood,    (Numbers    I6th  chapter)    "  the  earth   opened   her 
mouth  and  swallowed  them  up."     This  was  necessary,  and  at  the 
same  time  sufficient,  to  indicate  His  will  upon  this  subject  for  the 
instruction  of  all  subsequent  times.     He  did  not  afterwards  inter- 
pose for  this  purpose.     Even  when  the  High  Priest  obtained  the 
Office  by  Simony,  there  was  no   special  interposition  to   express 
Divine  displeasure.     At  first,  the  Jews  were  under  an  extraordinary 
Providence,  but   this   (its   object  having  been   accomplished)  was 
gradually  withdrawn.      And  Christians  too,  at  first,  were  somewhat 
similarly  situated.     Ananias  and  Sapphira,  were  visited  with  death 
for  falsehood.     But  this  does  not  ?iow  occur.     St.  Paul,  speaking  of 
the  miraculous  punishments  inflicted  upon  the  Jews,  says  :  "  They 
are  writtenyb?-  our  admonition.*'     We  have  no  more  right  to  expect 
God  to  interpose  now,  as  He  did  in  the  case  of  Korah,  than  we  have 
to  expect  Him  to  interpose  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and 
Sapphira.     Again :  The  Aposdes  professed  to  be  appointed  to  the 
Ministerial  Office  in  an  extraordinary  way.     Consequently,  they  had 
to   establish  their  pretensions  by  Miracles.     But  what  were   those 
Miracles  ?     They  did  not  merely  "  convert  sinners  from  the  error  of 
their  way" — but  over   and  above  that,   they    "spake  with  other 
tongues" — they  healed  the  sick  and  raised  the  dead  by  a  touch  or 
word.     These  were  the  Miracles  by  which  they  proved  themselves 
authorised   to   dispense   with   an    external   appointment   by    human 
agency,  such  as   prevailed  among  the  Jews  in  their  day.     These 
Miracles  were  then  necessary  to  attest  the  Divine  Origin  of  a  new 
Order  of  Ministry.     But  afterwards,  these  Ministers  committed  the 
same  authority  to  others,  (as  we  have'  seen  in  the  case  of  Timothy 
and  Titus)  and  they  to  others,  and  thus  the  office  descended  in  an 
ordinary  way,  as  it  latterly  did  among  the  Jews— that  is,  by  a  re- 
gular Succession  from  one  generation  of  Ministers  to  another.     The 
Divine  Authority  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  having  been  at  first 
established  by  Miracles,  Miracles  were  no  longer  needed,  but  only 
the  Succession  from  those  who  had  received  it.     And  hence,  when 
men  claim  to  be  sent  by  a  direct  call  from  God,  and  set  at  nought 
the  ordinary  way  of  obtaining  Ministerial  authority,  then  they  are 
obviously  bound  to  prove  by  Miracles,  their  extraordinary  appoint- 
ment.    Let  them  do  ///25,and  we  will  relinquish  our   "exclusive- 
ness."     Let  them  do  this,  and  we  will  at  once  acknowledge   the 
validity  of  their  ministrations.     But  until  they  do  this,  we  cannot 
abandon  our  position,  that  they  should  enter  the  Ministry  as  we  have 
done — by  the  ordinary  door.     But  is  this  exclusive?     If  it  be  so,  it 
is  not  our  fault.     Our  Church  would  gladly  give  this  commission  to 
all  suitable  persons.    And  if  they  voluntarily  reject  a  Ministry  which 
they  admit  to  be  valid,  and  which  six-sevenths  of  Christendom  deem 
necessary,  is  it  not  unkind  to  throw  the  blame  on  us  ? 


74 

The  reader  will  notice  that  the  remarks  made  above,  overthrow 
the  plea  of  success.  First :  Since  this  success  is  not  exhibited  until 
after  their  entrance  upon  the  office,  it  cannot  answer  as  proof — 
because  the  proof  should  be  furnished  before  they  can  consistently 
perform  the  least  function  of  the  Ministry,  ^'econd  :  This  success  is 
not  their  success — it  is  the  success  of  God's  word,  which  He  has 
said  "  shall  not  return  unto  Him  void" — and  which  is  often  blessed 
when  simply  rrad  to  others,  by  persons  making  no  pretensions  to  the 
Ministerial  character.  There  are  other  considerations  which  are 
equally  opposed  to  it.  The  labors  of  wicked  men  are  often  crowned 
with  success.  It  is  but  a  few  months  since  a  striking  instance  of 
this  was  published  in  our  secular  papers.  A  Preacher  entered  a 
certain  village  of  this  State,  proclaimed  the  Gospel  in  an  earnest  and 
popular  manner,  produced  a  "revival,"  and  "converted  sinners 
from  the  error  of  their  way."  But  before  he  had  been  there  twelve 
months,  it  was  discovered  that  he  had  all  the  while  been  living  in  the 
most  enormous  guilt.  Again:  What  does  Dr.  Nevius,  (a  Geiman 
Reformed  Preacher)  say  of  some  of  the  most  successful  revivalists  ? 
"  0/yg?2,"  says  he:  "//eis  covetous;  of /en  vain,  often  ivithout  a 
particle  of  humility  or  meekness^*  If,  then,  success  does  not 
even  prove  that  a  man  is  pious,  surely  it  cannot  prove  that  he  is  va- 
lidly commissioned.  Again  :  In  the  Methodist  System,  a  man  Prea- 
ches   two   years   before   they  pretend  to   Ordain  him.     And  during 


*  "  The  Anxious  Bench,"  p.  25 — a  Pamphlet,  which  ably  exposes 
the  evils  of  the  measures  of  modern  invention. 

Episcopalians  are  sometimes  represented  as  being  opposed  to 
*'  revivals."  If  they  mean  by  that  term,  an  increase  and  diffusion  of 
genuine  religion,  we  are  not  opposed  to  them  ;  but  seek  to  promote 
them.  But  if  they  include  in  that  term,  mourners'  benches,  &;c.  &c, 
we  are  opposed  to  them.  We  believe  that  they  produce  much 
mischief,  and  that  the  good  which  attends  them,  could  be  attained  by 
less  objectionable  means.  In  a  report  brought  into  a  late  meeting  of 
the  General  Assembly,  (Old  School,  I  believe)  the  author  stated  that 
he  had  ascertained  by  a  careful  examination  of  statistics,  that  ""one 
half^^  of  those  persons  converted'by  revivals,  were  subsequently  ex- 
pelled from  the  Communion.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  Dr.  Nevins' 
work  has  been  favorably  noticed  by  a  writer  in  the  Presbyterian  Ad- 
vocate, who  says  :  "  Never  was  a  publication  more  loudly  called  for 
by  the  tendency  of  the  times  *  *  *  when  the  Religion  of  a  whole 
year  is  crowded  into  a  few  weeks  of  strong  excitement,  instead  of 
showing  itself  in  the  prayers  of  the  sanctuary,  the  faith  and  good 
works  of  the  daily  walk,  and  the  faithful  discharge  of  all  the 
personal  and  relative  duties  of  life.  *  *  *  We  are  in  danger  of  being 
carried  away  by  a  tumultuous  whirlwind  of  religious  passion,  in 
which  it  is  to  be  feared  there  is  but  little  of  the  genuine  spirit  of  the 
Gospel,  and  it  is  high  time  to  arrest  it.  There  is  a  rock  mid-way 
between  the  cold  waters  of  a  lifeless  orthodoxy  and  the  wild  fire  of 
fanaticism,  where  we  may  safely  plant  our  feet." 


75 

these  two  years  his  labors  are  crowned  with  as  much  success,  as 
afterwards.  This  fact  conclusively  proves  that  success  in  ro  evidence 
of  valid  Ordination.  If  success  proves  any  thing — it  proves  too 
much,  at  least  too  much  for  the  Methodists  :  it  proves  that  no  Ordi- 
nation is  necessary.  And  if  so,  why  do  they  pretend  to  Ordain  ;  and 
that  too,  with  the  borrowed  Offices  of  our  Chuich?  But  the  position 
that  Ordination  is  unnecessary,  is  contrary  to  Scripture.  For  we  are 
told  that  the  Apostles  "  Ordained  Elders  in  every  city" — that  Titus 
was  commissioned  to  do  the  same  in  the  Island  of  Crete.  And  as  I 
before  said,  itcannor  be  proved  that  a  single  individual  was  allowed  in 
the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  perform  the  functions  of  the  Ministry 
without  Ordination.  Besides,  that  position  is  contradicted  by  the 
judgment  and  practice  of  the  Church,  from  the  primitive  times  to  the 
present.  Those  who  are  destitute  of  Ordination,  and  deny  its  neces- 
sity, rely  solely  upon  an  inward  call  or  persuasion.  That  a  man 
should  have  this  I  grant,  but  maintain  that  that  alone,  does  not  suffice  ; 
for  this  further  reason,  that  it  is  no  proof  to  others.  It  may  be 
imaginary,  and  it  may  be  counterfeited.  And  if  irue — no  one  knows 
it  but  the  Preacher  himself — consequently,  it  gives  no  assurance  to 
others,  however  satisfactory  it  may  be  to  him.  The  People  are 
not  bound  to  receive  men  as  the  Ambassadors  of  Christ,  upon  such 
a  pretence.  Indeed,  it  is  most  unreasonable  to  expect  them  to  do  so. 
It  has  proved  the  prolific  source  of  Fanaticism,  Delusion  and  Impos- 
ture. This  was  the  plea  of  Mahomet.  This  was  the  plea  of 
MunsterandGeo.Fox  and  their  followers,  who  if  permitted  would  have 
overthrown  society.  The  Quakers  of  the  present  day  are  a  virtuous  and 
orderly  people,  yet  such  is  their  plea,  while  rejecting  the  Sacra- 
ments. Does  God  call  one  man  to  Preach  the  Sacraments,  and  an- 
other to  reject  them  ?  Again  :  This  same  plea  is  set  up  by  Joseph 
Smith,  the  Mormon  Prophet.  And  how  often  do  females  imagine 
that  they  are  called  to  Preach,  notwithstanding  St.  Paul  says,  "  I  suf- 
fer not  a  woman  to  teach;"  (1  Tim.  2  :  12,)  and  again  :  "  Let  your 
women  keep  silence  in  the  Churches,  for  it  is  not  permitted  unto 
them  to  speak  ;"  (1  Cor.  14  :  34.)  These  instances,  which  it  would 
be  easy  to  increase,  are  not  adduced  to  prove  that  there  is  no  inward 
call,  but  to  prove  the  insufficiency  of  such  plea  alone — to  prove  that 
something  more  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  people  from  continual 
imposition,  and  to  prevent  Religion  from  being  brought  into  contempt. 
And  what  is  that  something,  but  the  Apostolic  Commission,  which 
Christ  has  lodged  in  his  Church  ?  I  freely  admit  that  there  are 
man)'-  excellent  Preachers,  relying  upon  this  plea,  who  are  entirely 
free  from  such  delusions  as  these  mentioned  ;  but  does  it  not  behoove 
both  them  and  their  people  to  consider  seriously,  whether,  in  refu- 
sing a  regular,  external  Commission,  they  are  not  sanctioning  and 
encouraging  those  fanatics  who  act  upon  the  same  plea  ?  As  long  as 
it  is  granted  that  such  a  plea  is  sufficient,  heresies  and  divisions  must 
continue  to  multiply.  I  know  that  Apostolic  Succession  would  not 
remedy  them  entirely,  but  it  would  undoubtedly  check  and  diminish 
them.  They  have  existed,  in  some  degree,  in  every  Age,  but  never 
in  such  abundance  as  at  present. 


76 


CHAPTER  IX. 

J^ruits  of  the  Succession — Prosperity  of  the  English  Church — 
Progress  of  the  American  Church — Assaults  of  Dissenters  upon 
the  Church — Conversions  to  the  Church  from  various  Denomina- 
tions, 

Mr.  A.  asks  for  the  Fruits  of  the  Succession.  It  is  easy  to  give 
them.  It  was  in  connextion  with  this  principle,  that  the  Blessed 
Gospel  was  carried  to  almost  every  part  of  the  world  a  thousand 
years  before  Methodism  was  heard  of.  It  numbers  among  its  adhe- 
rents six-sevenths  of  Christendom,  to  which  the  Methodists  are  but 
"  a  drop  in  the  bucket."  But  if  something  more  definite  be  demand- 
ed, let  the  Church  of  England  be  compared  with  other  Protestant 
Communities.  Mr.  A,  has  thrown  outcome  very  unjust  insinuations 
against  that  Church.  He  says  :  "  Nor  was  the  English  Church  half 
reformed  down  to  the  time  of  Mr.  Wesley."*  From  a  period  long 
before  Wesley  lived,  to  the  present  moment,  the  Doctrines  and  Prin- 
ciples of  that  Church  have  been  exactly  the  same  ;  and  here  Mr. 
Wesley  himself  shall  testify  to  its  Orthodoxy.  "  The  Religion  of 
the  Church  of  England  is  Methodism ;  as  appears  from  all  her  au- 
thentic records,  from  the  uniform  tenor  of  her  Liturgy,  and  from 
numberless  passages  in  her  Homilies.  This  Scriptural,  Primitive 
Religion  is  to  be  found  in  her  Morning  and  Evening  Service,  and  in 
her  daily,  as  well  as  occasional  Prayers."  (Sermon  65.)  Again  : 
Mr.  A.  makes  Wesley  call  the  Bishops,  "  mitred  Infidels."  Is  it 
just  to  circulate  such  grievous  charges  against  Christian  Ministers, 
without  a  single  proof  to  sustain  them  ?  Is  this  evidence  of  supe- 
rior piety  ?  Wesley's  opinion,  whatever  it  was,  must  be  received 
with  some  caution.     His  irregularies  rendered  him  obnoxious  to  the 


*  Let  this  be  compared  with  what  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says  of  the 
English  Church  :  "  I  was  born,  so  to  speak,  in  the  Church  ;  Bapti- 
sed in  the  Church  ;  brought  up  in  it ;  Confirmed  in  it,  by  that  most 
Apostolic  man.  Dr.  Bagot,  then  Bishop  of  Bristol,  afterward  of  Nor- 
wich ;  have  held  all  my  life  uninterrupted  Communion  with  it ; 
conscientiously  believe  its  Doctrines^  and  have  spoken  and  written 
in  defence  of  it.'^  "  Being  bred  up  in  its  bosom,  I  early  drank 
in  its  salutary  Doctrines  and  Spirit.^^  (Life  of  A.  Clarke,  vol.  3, 
pp.  11,0,  111.     Published  at  the  "  Conference  Office;'  N.  Y.) 

In  t)ie  same  letter,  the  Doctor  states  that  it  was  not  his  own  fault 
that  h6  was  "  without  those  most  respectable  Orders^''  conferred  by 
the  Church — that  it  was  owing  to  the  narrow  circumstances  of  his 
father,  which  prevented  him  from  receiving  the  requisite  education. 
Let  our  Methodist  brethren  note  the  contrast  between  Dr.  Clarke's 
views  of  the  Church  and  its  Orders,  and  those  of  their  present  Prea- 
chers. The  letter  from  which  these  extracts  are  taken,  was  written 
as  late  as  1829,  and  only  three  years  before  his  death. 


77 

Bishops,  and  therefore  he  was  hardly  qualified  to  judge  without  pre- 
judice. No  class  of  men,  in  modern  times,  have  done  so  much  to 
maintain  the  truth  of  Christianity,  as  the  Bishops  of  the  English 
Church.  How  different  is  the  Testimony  of  that  distinguished 
Presbyterian  Preacher,  Mr.  Albert  Barnes.  Says  he  :  "  While  men 
have  elevated  Christian  feelings  ;  while  they  revere  sound  learning  ; 
while  they  render  tribute  to  clear  and  profound  reasoning,  they  will 
not  forget  the  names  of  Barrow  and  Taylor,  of  Tillitson  *  *  *  and 
Butler  ;  and  when  they  think  of  humble,  pure,  sweet  and  Heavenly 
piety,  their  minds  will  recur  instinctively  to  the  name  of  Leighton. 
Such  names,  with  a  host  of  others,  do  honor  to  the  world."  (Epis- 
copacy Examined.)     All  these  were  Bishops.* 

Again  :  Mr.  A.  says  of  the  Church  of  England,  "  The  progress 
is  now  backward,  instead  of  forward."  In  this  he  is  directly  con- 
tradicted by  the  statements  of  the  most  distinguished  Methodist  of 
the  day.  Dr.  Durbin.  In  a  letter  which  he  wrote  while  in  Europe, 
and  which  was  published  in  the  "  National  Intelligencer,"  (Washing- 
ton,) he  says  :  "  The  Church  of  England,  I  regarded  before  I  left 
home,  2.sihQ  Bulwark  of  Protestantism  in  Europe;  I  still  so  regard 
t7,and  consider  it  the  best  possible  model  of  a  Church  and  State.  I  do  not 
say  thatthe  Dissenters  and  Methodists  have  declined  absolutely  in  num- 
bers, activity,  or  piety ;  but  I  say  the  Church  has  gained  vastly  more 
than  they  J  relatively,  during  the  last  ten  years:  so  much  so,  that  as  a 
candid  man,  I  believe  she  would  nearly  neutralize  their  influence 
in  the  course  of  half  a  century,  if  she  continues  to  increase  in  ac- 
tivity AND    PIETY  AS    SHE  HAS    DONE    FOR  THE  LAST  TEN  OR  FIFTEEN 

YEARS."  This  letter  was  written  about  a  year  ago,  and  after  he  had 
visited  England  and  inspected  its  condition  for  himself,  and  a  year  or 
two  after  the  Oxford  Tracts  ceased  to  be  issued.  Let  the  reader  note 
that  Dr.  Durbin  states  that  the  Church  of  England  has  increased  in 

ACTIVITY  AND    PIETY — "  VASTLY    MORE"  than    the    "  DiSSENTERS  AND 

Methodists  !"  Is  this  "  progress  backward  V  Does  he  ask  now 
for  the  "Fruits  of  the  Succession*?"  Again:  Let  the  reader  note 
that  Dr.  Durbin  "still  regards  the  Church  of  England  as  the 
bulwark  of  Protestantism  in  Europe  T^  Here  are  the  Fruits  of  the 
Succession.  A  Succession  Church  is  admitted  by  our  opposers  to 
be  the  "  bulwark  of  Protestanism  in  Europe."  How  diflTerent  is  this 
from  the  great  outcry  which  has  lately  been  raised  against  that  Church 
with  regard  to  Puseyism.  After  such  Testimony,  it  is  unnecessary 
to  say  much  respecting  the  condition  of  Protestant  Sects.     I  would 

*  The  celebrated  Dr.  Chalmers,  of  Scotland,  says  of  the  Church 
of  England  :  "  But  to  that  Church,  the  Theological  Literature  of  our 
Nation  stands  indebted  for  her  best  acquisitions."  *'  Nor  can 
we  grudge  her  the  wealth  of  her  endowments,  when  we  think  how 
well,  under  her  venerable  auspices,  the  battles  of  Orthodoxy  have 
been  fought;  that,  in  this  Holy  warfare,  they  are  her  sons  and  her 
scholars,  who  are  ever  foremost  in  the  field."  (Quarterly  Review, 
Dec.  1832.) 


78 

only  remind  the  reader  that  while  the  Faith  of  the  Church  of  Pin  gland 
has  remained  unchanged,  many  of  those  Sects  in  England,  and  on 
the  Continent,  have  fallen  into  Arianism  and  Rationalism — and  that 
while  the  Church  has  continued  united,  those  Sects  especially,  the 
Methodists,  have  been  dividing  and  sub-dividing,  until  they  have 
become  innumerable.  And  let  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country 
be  compared  with  the  Denominations  around  her — and  we  shall  see 
another  proof  that  God's  blessing  rests  upon  the  Succession  in  an 
extraordinary  manner.  While  the  Episcopal  Church  has  remained 
united  from  the  beginning— <the  various  Denominations  have  been 
rent  asunder  again  and  again.  The  four  leading  Denominations  are 
divided  into  the  following  distinct  organizations  : 


PRESBYTERIANS. 

Old-School  Presbyterians, 
New-School  Presbyterians, 
Cumberland  Presbyterians, 
Associate  Presbyterians, 
Dutch  Reformed  Presbyterians, 
Reformed  Presbyterians. 


CONGREGATIONALISTS. 

Orthodox  Congregationalists, 
Unitarian  Congregationalists, 
Transcendental  Congregationalists, 
Universal  Congregationalists. 


BAPTISTS. 

Calvinistic  Baptists, 
Free-Will  Baptists, 
Free-Communion  Baptists, 
Seventh-Day  Baptists, 
Six-Principle  Baptists, 
Emancipation  Baptists, 
Campbellite   Baptists. 

METHODISTS. 
Methodist  Episcopal, 
Protestant  Methodists, 
Primitive  Methodists, 
Wesleyan  Methodists, 
Associate  Methodists. 

Now  let  the  judgment  of  Scripture,  with  regard  to  Divisions,  be  re- 
membered. In  the  sublime  address  which  the  Redeemer  made  to  the 
Father,  just  before  his  Crucifixion,  he  requested  as  many  as  three 
distinct  times,  that  His  Disciples  might  be  one  ;  "  that  the  world  may 
know  that  thou  hast  sent  me."  (John  17  chap.)  And  St.  Paul  said  : 
*' Mark  them  which  cause  divisions,  and  avoid  them."  (Rom.  16, 
17.)  When  these  and  other  passages  are  considered,  I  cannot  but 
regard  unity  as  indicative  of  God's  special  favor.  Success  in  gather- 
ing rrambers  is  a  pooJ  criterion  to  judge  by.  But  we  are  willing  to 
appeal  to  it,  if  demanded.  It  is  true,  that  in  this  or  that  particular 
place,  the  progress  of  the  Church  is  slow,  on  account  of  some  un- 
favorable circumstance.  But  throughout  the  country,  its  present 
progress  is  more  rapid,  I  believe,  than  that  of  any  Denomination.  The 
number  of  our  Clergy  has  more  than  doubled  during  the  last  ten  years  ; 
and  the  number  of  Lay-Members  has  increased  in  the  same  propor- 
tion. But  to  ask  why  the  Church  does  not  do  more,  is  to  take  the 
ground  of  the  Infidel.  He  argues  in  the  same  way  respecting  Chris- 
tianity. If  it  be  the  only  true  Religion,  says  he,  why,  has  it  not  long 
ago  covered  the  whole  earth  1  This  at  once  shows  the  fallacy  of 
such  arguments.  To  expect  the  Gospel  in  its  purity  and  com- 
pleteness (that  is,  embracing  the  Church)  to  be  every  where  instantly 
received,  is  to  assume  that  men  are  always  ready  to  accept  and  obey  the 
truth — which  is  contrary  to  Scripture  and  experience.     Did  not  the 


79 

Saviour  and  his  Apostles  prove  unsuccessful  in  various  places  ?  Did 
not  St.  Paul  predict:  "  The  time  will  come,  when  they  (professing 
Christians)  will  not  endure  sound  doctrine  :  but  heap  to  themselves 
'i'eachers,  having  itching  ears."  Was  there  ever  a  greater  variety 
of  "  Teachers"  than  now  ?  Was  there  ever  greater  "  itching"  after 
novelties  in  Religion  ?  And  did  not  the  same  Apostle  declare  to  the 
Presbyters,  **also  of  your  own  selves,  shall  men  arise,  speaking 
perverse  things,  to  draw  away  Disciples  after  them  9^''  How  exact- 
ly does  this  suit  the  case  of  Dr.  Coke.  Surely  such  passages  as 
these  (and  there  are  many  similar  ones)  should  induce  every  one 
who  has  a'sincere  regard  for  God's  Word,  to  be  exceedingly  cautious 
in  following  men.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  pass  sentence  upon  my  fellow 
Christians  of  other  Communions  with  regard  to  their  piety,  and  ulti- 
mate Salvation.  To  their  own  Master,  they  stand  or  fall.  But  these 
admonitions  of  Scripture,  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  Sects, 
and  Heresies  are  so  rapidly  multiplying,  should  induce  us  all  to 
watch,  pray  and  reflect.  We  all  have  one  common  "  foundation — 
Jesus  Christ ;"  but  we  are  to  take  heed,  lest  we  "build  thereon 
wood,  hay  and  stubble," 

But  some  of  those  around  us,  while  demanding,  in  the  language  of 
the  impatient  Jews,  "  let  him  make  haste  that  we  may  see  it,"  are 
at  the  same  time  using  almost  every  sort  of  means  to  obstruct  the 
progress  of  the  Church.  We  do  not  object  to  a  candid  examination 
or  discussion  of  our  claims — we  desire  it.  But  we  think  we  have  a 
right  to  complain,  when,  instead  of  sound  argument,  exciting  appeals 
are  made  to  the  prejudices  and  passions  of  the  multitude — when  our 
principles  are  misrepresented,  and  affirmed  to  be  opposed  to  "liberty," 
''  equality,"  &c.  &c.  Such  means  would  not  be  resorted  to,  were 
there  not  an  utter  want  of  sound  argument.  And  though  they  may 
succeed  in  frightening  away  a  few  timid,  half-hearted  and  temporis- 
ing members,  and  in  keeping  aloof  those  who  will  not  take  the 
pains  to  examine  "  whether  these  things  be  so,"  yet  in  the  end 
they  will  only  contribute  to  our  increase,  both  in  strength  and 
numbers. 

The  intelligent,  candid,  independent  and  thoughtful,  will  sooner  or 
later  investigate  for  themselves,  and  the  triumph  of  Church  princi- 
ples is  inevitable.  Mr.  A.  and  others  are  aware  of  this,  and  hence 
the  attempt  to  stifle  discussion  by  branding  it  as  "  persecution"  (!) 
and  to  excite  prejudice  by  the  silly  clamor  about  '-liberty"  and 
"  equality  !"  These  means  were  used  in  England  for  a  long  time, 
and  with  some  success,  but  a  re-action  is  now  rapidly  taking  place, 
as  Durbin  testifies.  The  Church  is  proving  herself  the  Church  of 
the  poor,  as  well  as  the  rich. 

By  the  efforts  of  Churchmen,  a  bill  was  recently  introduced  into 
Parliament — providing  for  the  establishment  of  Schools  throughout 
the  whole  country.  But  it  was  defeated  by  the  opposition  of  Dis- 
senters !  But  the  Churchmen  of  England  are  determined  not  to  be 
baffled  in  the  benevolent  and  noble  enterprise.  They  have  contri- 
buted for  the  purpose,  nearly  one  inillion  of  dollars  out  of  their  own 


80 

private  funds  !  Let  the  reader  remember  that  that  is  a  "  Succession" 
Church,  and  that  though  united  with  the  State,  and  possesing  an  im- 
mense majority,  yet  every  Sect  enjoys  the  most  perfect  toleration. 

An  attempt  is  now  made  to  represent  Churchmen   as  the   aggres- 
sors.    Therefore,  it  may  be  well  to  show   in  what  manner  we  are 
assailed  by  those  who   boast  of  superior  piety  and  charity.     The 
'•New  York  Evangelist,"  (organ  of  the  New  School  Presbyterians,) 
not  long  since  published  the   following  sentiment  respecting  Episco- 
pacy, which   our  opponents  now  call   "Prelacy."     "It  has   every 
where  been  a  poisonous  tree^  inlecting  the  atmosphere  in  which  it 
flourished,"     *'  It  has  poured   the  miasma  of  death."     "  There  is 
no  safety  but  in  the  downfall  of  Prelacy,  and   the  Churches  of  this 
land  ought  never  to  rest  until  it  is  effected.''     (N.  Y.  Evang.  Dec. 
1,  1842.)  How  beautifully  this  accords  with  Dr.  Durbin's  statement, 
that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  the  "  bulwark  of  Protestantism  in  Eu- 
rope" !     How  beautifully  it  accords  with  the   following  Testimony 
from  a  Presbyterian   Divine   before  quoted,  Mr.  Barnes  :  "  Nor  can 
we  forget,"  says  he,  "  that  we  owe   to  Episcopacy  that  which   fills 
our  minds  with  gratitude  and  praise,  when  we  look  for  examples  of 
Consecrated  talent,  and  elegant  literature,  and  humble^  devoted  piety.'' 
"  We  have  never  doubted  that  many  of  the  purest  flames  of  devotion 
that  rise  from  the  earth,  ascend  from  the  Altars  of  the   Episcopal 
Church  ;  and  that  many  of  the  purest  spirits  that  the  Earth  contains, 
minister  at  those  Altars,  or  breathe  forth  their  Prayers   and  Praises, 
in  language  Consecrated  by  tlie  use  of  Piety  for  Centuries."     (Epis- 
copacy Examined.)     The  same  number  of  this  "  Evangelist"  (?)  ex- 
pressly declares  that  "  the  great  point  of  contest,  is  the  question  of 
Prelacy.'"     This  clearly  proves,    what  I  have   long  suspected,  that 
the   cry  of  "  Puseyism"  is  only  a  pretext.     A  subsequent   number 
contains  a  violent  tirade   against  us  all,  "  High    Church  and  Low," 
because  we  will  not  acknowledge  the  validity  of  their  Orders,  by 
permitting   them  to   officiate  in   our  Pulpits.     It  says  :  "  Their 
Episcopacy  and   its  Canons,  which  cause  them    to  do  so,  are  crimi- 
nal in  the  sight  of  God,  and  subject  them,  (i.  e.  Low-Churchmen,) 
at  every  turn,  to  the  charge  of  hypocrisy."     Such  is   the  treatment 
which  those  Churchmen  receive,  who  endeavor  to  conciliate,  by  in- 
dulging in  those  compliances  which  give  them  the  epithet  of  "Low." 
Again  :  We  find  language  but  little  better  in  the  Methodist  Christian 
Advocate.    It  says:  "  We  consider  the  semi-Popery  of  Puseyism,  as 
developed  in  the  High  Church  Doctrines  of  a  large  portion  of  the 
Ministers  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  quite  as  inimical 
to  Gospel  Truth,  arid  far  more  itisiduous,  than   unqualified  Ro- 
manism itself."     "  We  appeal  to  our  Sister  Churches"  &.c.  (Dec. 
14,  1842.)    This  same  paper,  as  all  our  opposers,  regard  "  Apostolic 
Succession"  as  the  root  and  essence  of  "  Pusyism."    And  since  that 
is   the   Doctrine  of  the    Church,  the  language  quoted  is  directed 
against  the  Church. 

This  paper  has  probably  infused  the  same  spirit  and  sentiment 
into   Mr.  A.     He  also   makes  an    appeal  to  "Sister    Churches." 


81 

*'  I  call  upon  all  of  every  Denomination,  who  cast  away  the  Doctrine 
of  High  Church  exclusiveness"  &c.  Let  them  "  appeal."  Let 
them  combine,  if  they  can.  We  fear  not.  "  The  Lord  of  Hosts  is 
with  us,  the  God  of  Jacob  is  our  Refuge." 

I  will  give  one  more  specimen  of  the  warfare  waged  against  us — 
taken  from  one  of  our  Church  Papers.  "A  miserable  pamphlet  has 
been  privately  printed  and  circulated  in  New  Haven,  Connecticut, 
without  any  imprint  or  printer's  name,  professing  on  the  title-page 
to  be  written  by  a  "Churchman,"  who  on  the  first  page  of  the 
pamphlet,  says  he  is  "  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church."  The 
Editor  of  Church  Chronicle  and  Record,  published  in  the  same  city, 
says  :  "  We  blush  for  our  race  while  we  write,  that  the  author  of  the 
pamphlet  is  a  Minister  holding  a  high  place  among  the  Congre- 
gation'ilists,  and  that  the  person  who  revised  the  proof  and  aided  in 
its  publication,  is  a  Minister  in  high  standing  in  the  same  Denomi- 
nation ;  and  we  are  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  believe,  that  the  re-publica- 
tion has  been  procured  by  a  third  person  holding  the  same  office, 
and  also  standing  high  among  his  brethren." 

Surely  the  sincere  Christian  of  every  name  must  "  blush"  too. 
Every  honorable  man  must  execrate  such  base  and  criminal  ex- 
pedients.* But  all  these  attacks  are  only  accelerating  the  progress 
of  the  Church.  They  have  led  to  inquiry,  and  inquiry  has  brought 
hundreds  to  the  Church  from  all  quarters.  Both  in  England  and  in 
this  country,  Dessenters  of  every  persuasion  are  seeking  an  Asylum 
from  Sectarian  Divisions  and  Errors,  in  the  peaceful  bosom  of  the 
Church.t     I  have  already  mentioned  in  a  note  the  transfer  to  the 


*  These  violent  and  unchristian  assaults  upon  the  Church,  are  not 
confined  to  individuals.  The  following  extracts  from  a  "  Pastoral 
Letter,'^  recently  issued  by  the  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Michigan, 
contain  a  mixture  of  falsehood  and  bitterness,  which  are  disgraceful 
to  the  Christian  name  :  "  We  likewise  exhort  you  not  to  be  deceived 
with  regard  to  the  fat  a  I  tendency  of  those  must  palpable  errors 
which  have  taken  possession  of  even  what  is  termed  the  Low 
Church  portion  of  that  mischievous  establishment.  Even  that 
portion,  in  our  estimation  has,  in  connection  with  it,  no  little  false 
theology,  and  exclusive  Sectarianism,  and  Jesuitical  Proselytism." 
"  When  they  will  come  out,  to  labor  side  by  side  with  Christians 
of  other  names,  then  and  not  until  then  will  they  cease  to  be  objects 

of   our    DECIDED    REBUKE    AND    SLEEPLESS    SUSPICIONS."        The    SamC 

*'  Letter"  applies  to  the  Church  epithets  and  phrases,  still  more 
oflensive— such  as  these—"  Spirit  of  Anti-Christ—''  Most  ruinously 
heretical  errors"  and  "  Elements  of  Popery  of  highest  caste."  Let 
the  reader  observe  that  this  attack  is  made,  not  by  an  individual 
Presbyterian,   but  by  a  Presbyterian  Synod. 

tAll  eyes  are  now  turned  to   the  Church.     A  distinguished  Uni- 
tarian lately  wrote  to  one  of  our  members,  "Although  not  of  your 
Communion,  I  look  to  it  as  the  sheet  anchor  for  the  Religious  in- 
6* 


82 

Church  of  England  of  a  whole  Congregation  of  Methodists — Preacher, 
People  and  house  of  worship.  It  is  now  becoming  very  common 
for  Methodists  of  the  second  and  third  generation  to  find  their  way- 
back  to  the  Church.  The  son  of  Dr.  A.  Clarke,  is  a  Clergyman  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  so,  also,  is  the  son  of  Dr.  Hannah, 
another  distinguished  Methodist. 

A  late  London  Paper  states  that  the  Bishop  of  Chester,  "has 
had  during  the  last  few  months  upwards  of  thirty  applications  from 
Dissenting  Ministers  for  admission  into  Holy  Orders."  Mr. 
Edward  Miall,  a  Preacher  among  the  Independents,  says :  "  The 
door  of  egress  from  our  ranks  is  set  wide  open  to  the  young,  and 
THEY  ARE  LEAVING  IN  CROWDS."  No  vvoudcr  that  Durbiu  States  that 
the  Church  "  has  gained  vastly  more  than  the  Dissenters  relatively." 
No  wonder  that  the  Wesleyan  Statistics  a  year  or  two  ago,  exhibited 
a  decrease. 

And  m  this  country  conversions  to  the  Church  from  the  various 
Denominations  are  no  less  numerous.  Bishop  De  Lancey,  in  a  note 
to  a  Sermon  recently  published,  makes  the  following  statements: 
*' Bishop  Griswold  stated,  in  1841,  that  of  two  hundred  and  eighty 
five  persons  Ordained  by  him,  two  hundred  and  seven  of  them 
came  into  the  Ministry  of  the  Episcopal  Church  from  other  De- 
nominations ;  but  what  proportion  of  these  had  been  Ministers,  he 
did  not  state.  From  the  most  accurate  investigation  that  can  be 
made,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  about  three  hundred  Clergymen 
AND  Licentiates  of  other  Denominations  have,  within  the  last 
thirty  years,  sought  the  Ministerial  Commission  from  the  hands  of 
the  Bishops  of  our  Church;  and  that,  of  the  present  Clergy  in  the 
Church,  at  least  two-thirds  were  not  originally,  by  educa- 
tion. Episcopalians,  but  have  come  from  other  folds." 

I  cannot  forbear  to  insert  here,  an  account  of  the  conversion  of 
one  of  these  Ministers,  written  by  himself — the  late  Kev.  Samuel 
Fuller  who  was  a  Presbyterian  Preacher  for  nineteen  years. 

"  After  considerable  reading  both  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  other 
books,  I  became  convinced  that  the  Ordination  which  I  had  received 
was  not  Scriptural,  and  consequently  was  not  valid.  Under  this 
conviction,  I  could  no  longer,  consistently  with  a  good  conscience, 
presume  to  ofRciate  in  Holy  things.  There  was  no  other  alternative, 
but  either  to  desist  wholly  from  the  Ministry,  or  to  obtain  that  Ordi- 
nation which  I  viewed  to  be  Scriptural  and  valid.  The  first  and 
principal  object  I  had  in  view  in  receiving  Episcopal  Ordination,  was 
to  obtain  authority  to  officiate  in  Holy  things.  The  next  object,  was 
to  be  connected  with  that  Church  whose  Government  view  to  be 
of  Divine  Institution.  I  believe  that  Christ  has  appointed  officers  in 
his  Church,  and  pointed  out  the  mode  by  which  these  officers  are  to 
be  inducted  into  office,  aud  the  mode  in  which  his  Church  is  to  be 


struction  of  our  country.  There  is  now  so  much  of  Fanaticism  on 
one  side,  and  of  Rationalism  on  the  other,  that  there  seems  no  so 
safe  ground  for  the  Religious  Institutions  as  the  Episcopal  Church. 


63 

governed,  m\d  tliat  no  man  nor  body  of  men  have  n  right  to  alter 
^hose  regulations  which  Christ  has  appointed.  If  then,  I  was  satisfied 
that  the  mode  in  which  I  was  introduced  into  the  Ministry  was  un- 
authorised, and  the  Church  Government  which  I  was  building  up 
was  not  the  Government  which  Christ  had  appointed ;  so  long  as  i 
continued  in  this  practice,  I  was  using  my  influence  to  promote 
schism,  and  to  rend  the  Church,  which  is  the  Body  of  Christ. 

"  These  things  were  agitated  in  my  mind  a  number  of  years,  but 
I  never  gave  the  subject  a  thorough  investigation,  till  within  about  a 
year  past.  Whenever  I  took  up  the  subject,  the  more  I  examined 
the  more  I  was  convinced  that  Presbyterian  Ordination  was  built  on 
a  sandy  foundation.  I  doubted,  but  still  was  not  sure.  Other  oc- 
"currenees  intervening  would  crowd  off  my  mind  from  this.  I  went 
on  in  the  old  way.  The  less  I  altended  to  it,  the  more  it  would  wear 
out  of  mind.  It  was  a  great  thing  to  change.  I  was  not  certain. 
Other  Ministers,  whose  Ordination  was  no  better  than  mine,  ap- 
peared ho  have  no  difficulty.  Then  some  circumstance,  perhaps, 
would  call  up  the  subject  again.  I  would  examine — and  on  every 
new  examination,  I  uniformly  found  that  the  validity  of  Presbyterian 
Ordination  appeared  more  doubtful.  Any  €ause  which  would  not 
bear  the  light,  has  always  looked  to  me  like  a  bad  one — I  found  that 
there  was  no  way  to  get  along  comfortably  with  Presbyterian  Ordi- 
Elation,  bwt  to  put  it  into  the  dark  and  not  look  at  it. 

"My  trials  the  year  past  have  been  very  great.  The  special  atten- 
tion to  Religion  increased  my  Ministerial  Labors,  and  multiplied 
occasions  of  officiating  in  the  administration  of  Baptisms,  and  the 
admission  of  persons  into  covenant  with  the  Church.  In  the  per- 
formance of  these  Ministerial  acts,  I  often  doubted  of  my  authority, 
and  the  propriety  of  those  things  which,  as  a  professed  Minister  of 
Christ,  I  was  performing.  On  every  examination  of  the  subject  my 
doubts  increased.  I  stated  my  difficulties  to  individual  Ministers 
with  whom  I  was  the  most  intimate.  The  result  of  every  conversa- 
tion with  them  was  to  strengthen  me  in  the  opinion  that  the  Episco- 
pal Church  alone  retained  that  Ordination  and  Government  which 
are  Primitive  and  Apostolical. 

"  The  Cause  of  Christ  above  all  other  considerations  is  precious, 
and  ought  to  outweigh  every  objection  against  promoting  it.  To 
iive  and  die  disconnected  from  the  Apostolic  Church,  was  not  con- 
sistent with  ;i  good  conscience.  Whatever  it  may  be  to  others,  to 
me  it  would  have  been  sin.  I  judge  no  man,  but  commit  all  judg^ 
ment  to  Hiri;  who  judgeth  righteously.  If  others  cannot  see  with 
me,  they  mwst  stand  or  fall  for  themselves.  But  it  is  not  candid  to 
judge  a  caus  :  without  a  hearing.  Many  People  who  undertake  to 
judge  in  the^\;  matters  are  almost  totally  ignorant  of  the  principles  of 
Episcopacy,  If  any  have  said  hard  things  against  it,  ray  Prayer  to 
a  merciful  God  is,  that  they  may  be  forgiven.  The  prejudice  of 
education  is  very  strong.  Few  People  think  for  themselves.  Hu- 
man nature  is  the  same  in  all  classes  of  men.  Mankind,  as  they 
love  those  v;ho  love  them,  censure  those  who  differ  from  them  in 


B4. 

sentiment.  But  all  sentiments  and  practices  are  not  equally  good.. 
There  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  in  Religion  as  well  as  in  other  things. 
But  it  is  wrong  to  condemn  any  Religious  sentiment  or  practice 
without  knowing  what  it  is.  Although  the  step  which  I  have  taken 
is  followed  with  some  disagreeable  consequences^  the  great  object  is 
obtained.  I  am  now  relieved  from  distressing  doubts  about  the 
validity  of  my  Orders.  I  now  enjoy  the  pleasing  satisfaction  of 
belonging  to  that  visible  Church  whose  Ministry  and  Sacraments, 
whose  Doctrine  and  Worship,  are  according  to  the  Institution,  of 
Christ.  The  few  remaining  days  of  my  life  I  hope,  Divine  Grace 
assisting,  to  be  instrumental  in  doing  something  to  build  up  that 
Church  which  he  earnestly  prayed  might  be  one,  and  in  which  the 
Apostles  exhorted  that  there  might  be  no  divisions  nor  offences." 

After  Mr.  Fuller  had  obtained  Episcopal  Ordination,  he  settled  at 
Rensselaerville,  N.  Y.,  where  he  founded  a  Parish,  in  which  he 
labored  with  great  success  until  his  death,  i.  e.,  for  thirty-one 
YEARS.  Another  of  these  Ministers  lately  sent  the  following  interesting 
account  of  his  conversion  to  the  editor  of  the  "  Witness  and  Advo- 
cate," to  whom  he  is  well  known : 

'*  The  Subscriber,  some  fourteen  years  since,  graduated  in  one  of 
the  New  England  Colkges.  He  was  then  a  member  of  the  Orthodox 
Congregational  Denomination.  Whilst  an  undergraduate,  he  became 
interested  in  the  subject  of  Ecclesiastical  polity,  from  hearing,  about 
that  time,  of  so  many  novel,  and  as  he  conceived,  arbitrary  proceed- 
ings in  the  Councils  of  that  Body.  One  case  of  unusual  interest^ 
was  the  famous  Lebanon  Convention. 

"  Having  read  Slater's  Draft  of  the  Primitive  Church,  he  became 
convinced,  that  if  he  wished  to  seek  an  Ecclesiastical  Government, 
free  from  the  interference  of  irresponsible  individuals  and  Councils, 
and  withal,  presenting  the  strongest  claims  to  Apostolic  authority 
and  practice,  he  should  find  it  only  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church. 

"  He  opened  his  mind  to  the  President  of  the^College.  * ,'  said 

he,  '  I  will  hold  up  my  both  hands  to  your  going  into  that  Church — 
that  Church  (with  emphasis)  of  the  Scotts,  and  Newtons,  and 
Richmonds,  and  Martyns.'  I  passed  from  the  study  of  the  President 
into  his  parlor,  when  his  pious  and  excellent  lady^  having  heard  of 
my  intentions,  observed,  "  I  am  truly  glad  that  you  think  of  the 
Ef)iscopal  Church.  I  have  long  been  an  admirer  of  that  Church, 
and  I  am  persuaded  you  will  be  far  happier  there  than  among  the 
Congregationalists." 

*'  About  the  same  time  I  had  an  interview  with  Professor  • ,. 

of  the  same  institution,  on  the  subject.  "  I  have  been  reading"  said 
he,  the  "Life of  Leiga  Richmond"  There  is  something  in  the 
piety  of  Episcopalians  so  unaffected  and  unassuming  ;  so  free  from 
the  cant  of  the  age,  that  I  am  really  quite  in  love  with  them, — and 
1  will  heartly  add  ray  concurrence  with  that  of  the  President,  in, 
your  choice." 

*'In  the  Archives  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  om*  Diocese,  or 


85 

father  of  this  State,  will  be  found  a  letter  from  each  of  these  distin- 
;guished  individuals — the  President  and  Professor — recommending 
me  to  the  notice  of  the  Episcopal  authorities.  They  were  noticed 
at  the  time,  as  our  worthy  Treasurer  of  the  Convention  perhaps  will 
recollect,  as  something  remarkable. 

"  The  Subscriber  has  since  Baptised  three  young  gentlemen  from 
the  sauie  Denomination.  One  of  them,  after  Ordination,  was,  for  a 
while.  Editor  of  one  of  our  Journals.  The  other  two  are  Rectors  of 
Parishes,  and  very  successful ;  one  of  whom  is  Secretary  of  one  of 
our  New  England  State  Conventions.  Three  of  his  collegiate 
friends  also,  who  graduated  in  three^  Classes  preceding  him,  have 
entered  the  Episcopal  Church,  all  of  whom  are  actively  employed." 

In  consequence  of  these  numerous  conversions,  we  are  sometimes 
accused  of  "  Proselyting" — but  as  the  above  cases  show,  they 
*'  Proselyte"  themselves  by  a  deliberate  and  candid  examination  of 
our  principles.  Many  of  these  Ministers  were  among  the  most 
useful  and  prominent  in  the  Denominations  which  they  left. 

According  then  to  Dr.  De  Lancey's  estimate,  two-thirds  of  our 
Clergy,  (that  is  800)  have  come  from  other  Denominations.  What 
a  powerful  attestation  of  the  Truth  of  Episcopacy !  I  know  there 
are  a  few  fickle-minded  persons  who  are  always  changing  their 
Religion.  But  when  hundreds  of  the  most  intelligent  men  flock 
from  all  quarters  into  the  Church,  it  ought  at  least  to  awaken 
serious  consideration  and  thorough  examination. 

Of  course,  we  freely  admit  that  many  intelligent  and  excellent 
men  reject  Episcopacy,  and  whose  judgment,  probably,  has 
great  weight  with  thousands.  But  do  not  intelligent  and  excel 
lent  men  reject  other  truths  ?  How  many  deny  the  Deity  of  the 
Saviour?  How  many  reject  Infant  Baptism  ?  Again  :  Have  those 
men  thoroughly  and  impartially  examined  Episcopacy  ?  Let  the 
reader  rer]:iember  the  case  of  Mr.  Fuller.     Some  time  since,  I  fell  in 

company  with  a  Preacher  of  some  note  in  the    Denomination, 

an  aged  man,  and  Pastor  of  a  large  and  devoted  Congregation,  The 
conversation  soon  turned  upon  Apostolical  Succession  ;  and  almost 
the  first  remark  that  he  made,  was,  that  he  considered  it  a"  figment." 
However,  we  had  not  discussed  the  question  long,  before  he  candidly 
admitted  that  he  had  "  not  paid  the  subject  much  attention"  (!)  and 
assigned  as  the  reason,  that  when  he  was  a  student,  the  subject  was 
not  much  agitated.  And  yet,  such  men  sway  the  judgment  of  thou- 
sands of  persons  !  It  is  now  too  late  for  such  a  man  to  investigate 
the  subject.  The  circumstances  by  which  he  is  surrounded,  would 
be  almost  certain  to  influence  his  judgment.  These  facts  show  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  Christian  to  examine  for  himself.  The 
best  are  liable  to  err  :  therefore,  we  should  take  no  man  for  our 
guide. 


CHAPTER  X. 

The  Polity  of  the  Churchy  Republican — Methodism^  Despotic — 
Prescribed  Forms  of  Prayer  used  by  the  Methodists — Ji  Brief 
Statement  of  the  Argument  in  their  Favor — Episcopalians 
Unanimous  with  Regard  to  the  "  Succession'^ — Circulation  of 
the  Scriptures — Clerical  Garments- — "  Persecution^^  of  Wesley 
Explained —  Conclusion. 

I  have  already  intimated  that  Mr.  A.  has  endeavored  to  represent 
our  Church  as  opposad  to  "  Liberty,"  "  Equality,"  ''  Freedom  of 
Opinion,"*  &c.  Let  any  one  examine  its  Constitution  and  Canons, 
and  he  will  at  once  see  that  the  charge  is  utterly  unfounded.  Our 
Church  is  purely  Republican  in  ail  its  branches.  It  corresponds 
exactly  with  our  Civil  Government.  The  Church,  in  every  State, 
has  what  is  called  a  Diocesan  Convention.  This  Convention  is  com- 
posed of  those  Clergymen  who  have  charge  of  Parishes,  and  of  an 

EqUAL  NUMBER  OF  LaY  REPRESENTATIVES,  CHOSEN  BY  THE  PARISHES. 

The  Convention  can  make  no  regulations  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  Lay-members.  And  even  when  a  Bishop  is  to  be  chosen,  a  ma- 
jority OF  THE  Laity  must  always  concur.  Again  :  In  every  Pa- 
rish, the  Minister  is  ehosen  by  the  Laity  :  consequently,  the  People 
say  who  shall  be  their  Bishop,  their  Priest,  or  their  Deacon.  Once 
more  :  Beside  these  State  Conventions,  we  have  a  General  Conven- 
tion, which  legislates  for  the  whole  Church.  And  this  General  Con- 
vention, is  composed,  like  Congress,  of  an  Upper  and  Lower  House. 
The  former  is  composed  of  the  Bishops — the  latter,  of  an  equal 
number  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Representaiives,  chosen  by  the  State 
Conventions.  And  as  no  regulation,  respecting  Doctrine,  Discipline, 
or  anything  else,  can  be  made  without  the  concurrence  of  both  Hou- 
ses, and  nothing  done  in  the  Lower  House  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  Lay  Representatives,  the  Laity  can  controll  all  Legisla- 
tion.    Consequently,  there  can  be  no  Doctrine,  or  Regulation  of  Dis- 

*  I  borrow  the  following  pertinent  remarks  upon  this  subject,  from 
one  of  our  Periodicals :  ^'  Will  the  immortal  Washington  be  accu- 
sed of  any  leaning  to  anti-Republicanism  ?  Yet  he  ever  cherished 
31  strong  and  enlightened  attachment  to  the  Church,  and  lived  and 
died  in  her  Communion.  The  same  may  be  said  of  most  of  his 
brethren  in  arms  and  in  cov.ncil,  during  that  memorable  struggle 
which  resulted  in  the  liberty  and  independence  of  our  Country  ;  a 
John  Jay,  a  Hamilton,  a  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  a  Patrick 
Henry,  a  Madison,  a  Monroe,  and  many  other  of  their  distinguished 
compatriots — were  all  Churchmen.  Enougli,  then,  of  such  silly 
and  unworthy  imputations ;  and  it  is  strange  that  even  assailants  of 
the  feeblest  intellect  do  not  perceive  that  accusations  so  unfounded 
and  absurd  can  only  operate  to  the  advantage  of  the  Church  which 
they  are  intended  to  injure." 


87 

cipline,  imposed  upon  them,  but  what  they  deliberately  assent  to. 
And  as  to  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  Ministers  and  People  are 
upon  a  perfect  equality.  They  are  all  required  to  interpret  it  only 
in  accordance  with  that  Creed  to  which  they  have  already  subscribed. 
Does  Methodism  contain  as  much  Republicanism  ?  Let  us  see  : 
The  Methodist  Annual  Conferences,  and  General  Conference,  (which 
legislates  for  the  whole  body  of  Methodists,)  are  composed  solely 
OF  Preachers — not  a  single  Layman  has  a  seat,  to  lift  up  his 
voice  in  Defence  of  the  Rights  of  the  Laity.  The  Preachers 
do  all  the  Legislation  ! !  Besides,  the  Preachers  alone  re- 
ceive other  Preachers  on  trial,  and  to  full  membership  with  the  Con- 
ference !  The  Preachers  alone  elect  the  Bishops.  (?)  This  anti- 
Republican  feature  of  Methodism  has  already  caused  one  or  more 
schisms  among  them,  and  no  wonder.  For  many  years,  memorials 
against  it  have  been  sent  up  by  the  Laity,  but  in  vain  !  The  views 
of  these  Preachers  may  be  learned  from  the  following  extracts  from 
the  answer  which  the  General  Conference  of  1828  made  to  their 
memorials  : 

"'  The  great  Head  of  the  Church  himself^  has  imposed  on  us  the 
duly  of  Preaching  the  Gospel,  of  administering  its  Ordinances, 
and  of  maintainmg  its  Moral  Discipline,  among  those  over  whom 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  made  us  Overseers^  "  Of  Gospel  Doctrines, 
Ordinances,  and  Moral  Discipline,  we  do  Believe  that  the  Di- 
vinely Instituted  Ministry  are  the  Divinely  authorized  Ex- 
pounders, and  that  the  duty  of  maintainmg  them  in  their  purity, 
and  of  not  permitting  our  Ministrations  to  be  authoritatively  con- 
trolled by  others,  does  rest  upon  us  loith  the  force  of  a  moral  obli- 
gation'') I! 

And  yet  these  men,  making  these  extraordinary  claims,  and  pos- 
sessing such  enormous  power,  charge  our  Clergy  with  wishing 
"  to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage,"  although  we  cannot  make  the  least 
alteration  in  Constitution,  Doctrine  or  Usage,  without  the  co-operation 
of  the  Laity. 

Again :  The  Methodist  Preachers  in  charge  of  Congregations, 
instead  of  being  chosen  by  the  People,  are  sent  by  the  Conference. 
That  is,  the  Preachers  send  the  Preachers  to  whatever  station  they 
please,  and  the  Laity  must  receive  them  whether  they  like  them  or 
not !  And  this  will  appear  the  more  despotic  when  the  power  of 
these  Preachers  over  their  Congregations  are  understood.  The 
Preacher  appomts  all  the  Class-leaders,  and  changes  them  at  his  will. 
He  not  only  receives  the  members,  but  tries  and  expels  them  !  If 
a  member  be  accused  of  anything  contrary  to  the  Discipline,  he  is 
tried  in  the  presence  of  the  Preacher,  and  before  a  Special  Com- 
mittee, selected  for  the  purpose.  If  a  majority  of  them  deem  him 
guilty,  and  "the  crime  be  such  as  is  expressly  forbidden  by  the 
word  of  God,"  the  Preacher  expels  him.  But  if  the  Preacher  deem 
him  guilty  while  the  majority  of  the  Committee  deem  him  innocent, 
the  Preacher  can  refer  his  case  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  which 
is   composed  of  Preachers,  Exhorters,  Stewards  and  Leaders,  a  ma- 


88 

jority  of  whom  decide  his  fate.  Or  if  the  expelled  member  thinks 
himself  aggrieved,  he  can  appeal  to  the  same  Conference— but  that 
Conference  is  composed  solely  of  the  Preachers  and  their  Creatures. 
The  despotism  of  this  feature,  however  consists,  not  in  the  mere  fact 
that  the  Preachers  expel,  but  connected  with  the  fact  before  mentioned 
— that  Preachers  rnakethe  Laws.  Consequently, the  Preachers  are  the 
Legislators,  the  Judges  and  the  Executors  !  Moreover,  a  member  is 
expelled  not  merely  for  violating  the  Precepts  of  Scripture — but  for 
breaking  a  regulation  of  man  !  He  is  expelled  for  refusing  to  attend 
Class!*  Thus,  a  man  is  deprived  of  what  they  conceive  to  be 
Church  Communion,  for  disregarding  an  institution  which  is  not 
even  alluded  to  in  Holy  Scripture,  much  less  prescribed  as  a  con- 
dition of  Church  Membership;  and  which  had  no  existence  until  the 
daysof  Wesley  !  Of  course,  those  who  wish  to  submit  to  such  a  system, 
are  at  perfect  liberty  to  do  so.  But  certainly,  Methodist  preachers  ought 
to  be  the  last  persons  to  accuse  others  of  opposition  to  "Equality.' 

Mr.  A.  has  thrown  out  an  insinuation  against  Forms  of  Prayer. 
It  is  impossible  for  me  to  do  justice  to  so  many  points  within  so 
small  a  compass.  But  I  feel  bound  to  make  a  brief  defence  of 
this  usage.  Let  me  tirst  observe,  however,  that  such  an  insinu- 
ation proceeds  with  very  ill  grace,  from  a  Methodist.  Fletcher, 
Whitfield  and  Wesley,  were  in  the  habit  of  using  these  same  forms 
to  the  day  of  their  death.  And,  among  the  reasons  M'hich  Wesley 
published  against  separation  from  the  Church,  may  be  found  the  fol- 
lowing passage  :  "The  Prayers  of  the  Church  are  not  chaff;  t/iei/ 
are  substantial  food  for  any  trho  are  aive  to  God''''  Again  :  In 
the  letter  from  Wesley  to  the  "  Brethren  in  North  America,"  which 
is  contained  in  Mr.  A.'s  pamphlet,  may  be  found  this  passage:  "I 
have  prepared  a  Liturgy  little  differing  from  that  of  the  Church  of 
England,  which  I  advise  all  the  Traveling  Preachers  to  use  on 
the  Lord's  day,  in  all  the  Congregations."  But  this  Liturgy  has 
been  discarded,  and  the  advice  set  at  nought.  Can  the  Methodists  of 
the  present  day,  be  correctly  called  the  followers  of  Wesley?  But, 
although  they  "have  laid  aside  the  Litany  and  ordinary  Sunday  Service 
prescribed  by  Wesley,  they  have  deemed  it  expedient  to  retain 
Forms  for  Special  Occasions.  If  the  reader  will  refer  to  the  Disci- 
pline, he  will  find  an  abundance  of  them — all  copied,  too,  from  our 
Prayer-book — in  the  offices  for  Baptism,  Communion,  Burial  of  the 
Dead,  Matrimony  and  Ordination  ! 

Forms  were  appointed  by  God  himself,  in  the  Mosaic  Dispensa- 
tion. (See  Num.  6:  24,  27.  Deuter.  26:  5,11,  12,  15—- 21  :  7,8.) 
In  the  Temple  Service,  Forms  of  Prayer  and  Praise,  together  with 
Psalms,  were  used.  (See  Lightfoot  and  Home.)  And  every  one 
knows  that  our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles,  were  accustomed  to  join 
regularly  in  that  service.  John  the  Baptist  "  taught  his  Disciples  " 
to  pray ;  and  our  Saviour,  himself,  prescribed  a  Form  of  Prayer. 
He  says  :    "  When  ye  Pray,  say.  Our  Father,  &;c."     I  believe  this 

*  For  all  these  facts  see  the  Methodist  Discipline. 


89 

Form  is  used  by  all  denominations.  And  if  they  can  use  one  Forn} 
with  sincerity,  wliy  not  another?  Again:  The  early  Christians 
followed  the  Jewish  practice  in  this  particular.  We  find  a  Form  of 
Prayer  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Acts.  It  is  stated  that  the  Disciples 
"lifted  up  their  voice  to  God,  with  one  accord,  and  said ^  Lord, 
thou  art  God,^^  &c.  And  that  they  were  used  in  the  ages  next  after 
the  Apostles,  is  incontrovertibly  proved  from  Ancient  Authors.  They 
are  now  used  by  all  the  old  Churches.  The  Nestorian  Church  and 
the  Malabar  Church,  (of  which  Dr.  Grant  and  Dr.  Buchanan  have 
written)  both  have  Liturgies.  Dr.  Buchanan  attributes  the  preservU' 
Hon  of  Christianity  among  the  Christians  of  India,  to  their  Liturgy. 
In  private,  Episcopalians  are  at  liberty  to  lay  aside  prescribed 
Forms :  but  in  Public  Worship  we  think  them  preferable  for  many 
reasons,  *  some  of  which  are,  that  the  matter  and  language  of  our 
Prayers  may  be  previously  considered  and  well  understood — that  all 
the  Congregation  may  join  in  them  with  unanimity — that  they  may 
take  part  in  them  by  responses-^that  whatever  may  be  the  deficiency 
of  the  Minister,  the  people  may  always  have  such  Prayers  as  agree 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  such  as  are  spiritual,  elevating 
and  dignified  t — that  the  people  may  not  hear  prayers,  but  offer  them, 

*  One  serious  evil  resulting  from  the  extempory  method  of  Public 
Worship  is,  that  a  very  small  portion  of  the  time  is  spent  in  devo- 
tinn — the  people,  in  a  measure,  cease  to  look  upon  the  Sanctuary  as 
"  The  House  of  Prayer" — and  too  generatly  go  to  hear  a  Sermon, 
instead  of  to  Pray.  Dr.  Franklin,  in  a  letter  to  his  daughter,  very 
wisely  cautioned  her  against  this  evil.  Said  he  :  "  Go  constantly  to 
Church,  whoever  preaches.  The  act  of  devotion  in  the  Common 
Prayer-Book,  is  your  principal  business  there,  and,  if  properly  atten- 
ded to,  will  do  more  towards  amending  the  heart,  than  Sermons 
generally  can  do.  For  they  were  composed  by  men  of  much  greater 
piety  and  wisdom,  than  our  common  composers  of  Sermons  can 
pretend  to  be  ;  and  therefore  I  wish  you  would  never  miss  the  Prayer 
days." 

t  A  late  London  paper  gives  the  following  account  of  the  Conver- 
sion of  a  Dissenter,  by  means  of  the  Prayer-Book  :  "  It  happened 
not  long  ago  in  Wales,  {hand  ficta  loquimer)  that  a  youngster  was 
appointed  to  the  Pastoral  charge  of  a  Dissenting  Congregation. 
Dissent  was  low  and  the  Church  popular.  Something  must  be  done 
to  revive  the  cause;  accordingly  a  Lecture  against  the  Prayer-Book 
was  suggested  to  the  youthful  Minister,  as  an  admirable  method  of  ex- 
hibiting his  own  powers,  and  raising  the  Dissenting  interest  at . 

To  this  he  had  but  one  objection,  which  was,  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  the  Prayer- Book,  except,  in  general,  that  it  was  Popish,  and 
Formal,  and  so  forth.  However,  he  commenced  his  studies  upon  the 
dangerous  volume,  and  dangerous  it  proved,  for  he  found  to  hi? 
amazement,  a  body  of  devotion,  scriptural,  spiritual,  edifying. 
In  a  word,  he  renounced  Dissent,  and  is  now  a  warmly  devoted  son 
and  Minister  of  the  F^stablished  Church." 


90 

and  that  they  may  not  be  occupied  in  admiring  the  beauties,  or  criti- 
cising the  errors,  of  the  Minister's  prayers,  when  they  should  be 
engaged  in  devotion.  And  do  not  all  Denominations  use  Forms  of 
Prayer?  Most  Hymns  and  Psalms  contain  Prayers  and  Praises 
addressed  directly  to  God.  Should  not  the  heart  accompany  them  ? 
And  if  they  can  sing  heartily  with  a  Form,  why  cannot  we  pray 
heartily  with  a  Form  ?  Is  it  not  inconsistent  to  censure  Forms  while 
continually  using  them  in  the  shape  of  Hymns  and  Psalms  ? 

*'  Crito,  freely  will  rehearse 

Forms  of  Prayer  and  Praise,  in  verse  : 

Why  should  Crito  then  suppose 

Forms  are  sinful,  when  in  prose  ? 

Must  my  Form  be  deemed  a  crime, 

Merely  for  the  want  of  rhyme?" 
And  after  all  the  objections  made  to  Forms,  are  not  Extemporary 
Prayers,  Forms  to  the  People?  They  are  only  Extemporary  to 
the  Minister.  To  the  People  who  follow  them,  they  are  as  really 
Forms,  as  if  printed  in  a  book.  So,  by  either  arrangement,  the  Peo- 
ple have  a  Form — and  is  it  not  better  to  have  one  that  has  been  pre- 
scribed by  the  wisdom  of  the  whole  Church  ? 

Lasdy  :  Are  these  Extemporary  Prayers  really  impromptu  ?  Are 
they  not  premeditated  ?*  The  Presbyterian  Directory  recommends 
the  matter,  at  any  rate,  which  is  the  chief  part — and  every  one 
knows  that  they  are  nearly  the  same,  both  in  matter  and  language, 
Sunday  after  Sunday. 

Mr.  A.  has  furnished  some  extracts  from  a  late  Charge  of  Bishop 
Mcllvaine.  As  I  have  never  seen  the  Charge,  I  cannot  say  whether 
his  quotations  are  more  accurate  than  those  from  the  Fathers,  and 
Bishop  Hooker.  Whatever  Bishop  Mcllvaine  has  said,  it  either 
agrees  with  our  Standards,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  does,  I  concur  in  the 
views  which  he  has  expressed.  If  it  does  not,  how  can  he  be  a 
"man  of  God" — as  Mr.  A.  admits  he  is — seeing  he  has  subscribed 
to  those  Standards  ?  That  "  this  man  of  God,"  however,  is  a  tho- 
rough Churchman,  is  evident  from  the  following  quotations  from  his 
writings — the  first  from  a  Charge,  and  the  second  from  a  published 
Sermon  : 


*■'  A  Correspondent  of  the  "  Churchman"  states  the  following  fact : 
*'  Among  those  celebrated  in  modern  times,  in  this  Country,  for  their 
"  beautiful"  Prayers,  was  the  late  Rev.  Mr.  Christmas,  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Sect.  He  died  early  in  life,  and  deservedly  beloved  for 
many  virtues.  We  are  told  by  one  who  knew,  that  among  his  pa- 
pers were  found  almost  all  the  Prayers  he  ever  made  in  Public 
FULLY  WRITTEN  OUT  !  In  hls  casc,  it  is  said  the  acute  observer  could 
detect  when  he  departed  from  his  Form — and  particularly  when  he 
did  make  an  Extemporaneous  Prayer,  as  he  was  sometimes  obliged 
to  do,  and  again  when  he  would  lose  the  thread  of  his  memoriter 
Form  of  Prayer.  His  Prayer  was  often  written  out  and  before 
HIM,  as  he  delivered  it  to  the  Congregation,  and  to  God." 


91 

"  No,  my  brethren  !  if  you  would  promote  the  spirit  of  vital  God- 
liness in  the  world,  we  must  promote  it  in  connection  with,  and 
BY  MEANS  OF,  THAT  ONLY  BODY — THE  Church — which  the  Lord  has 
built  as  the  earthly  house  of  its  Tabernacle  in  this  wilderness.  You 
may  as  well  expect  your  minds  to  be  in  health,  while  your  bodies 
are  diseased,  as  that  the  Spirit  of  Religion  will  flourish, while  the  Body 
of  Religion,  the  Visible  Church,  is  disordered."  "  Why  not  believe 
it,  as  well  when  it  proves  the  unbroken  descent  of  the  Apostolic 
office,  as  when  it  witnesses  to  the  canonical  books  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture ?  How  can  we  suspect  the  Fathers  of  the  Chuch,  when  they 
testify  of  the  former;  without  rendering  their  testimony  suspicious, 
when  they  speak  of  the  latter;  yea,  without  casting  entire  doubtful- 
ness into  the  whole  region  of  Historic  Testimony  ?  The  care  of  the 
Church  to  preserve  the  Scriptures  inviolate,  is  no  more  manifest  in 
the  History  of  Christianity,  than  her  watchful  care,  in  all  ages  and 
countries,  and  now,  even  among  the  long  wasted  and  oppressed 
Christians  of  Oriental  nations,  to  guard  the  descent  of  the 
Apostolic  Office." 

The  first  passage  teaches  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  Church, 
and  the  second  teaches  the  doctrines  of  Apostolic  Succession.  What- 
ever difference  of  opinion  may  exist  among  Episcopalians,  upon 
minor  points,  they  are  unanimous  upon  that  which  causes  the  great 
distinction  between  the  Church  and  the  various  Denominations,  and 
which  is  the  main  cause  of  all  their  opposition  against  us— the  Epis- 
copal Succession  from  the  Apostles.  The  "  Episcopal  Recorder" 
has  recently  contained  two  or  three  editorials  in  defence  of  this  Doc- 
trine, which  concluded  with  these  passages  : 

"  All  Christian  Denominations  around  us  practically  concede  the 
necessity  of  an  Apostolic  Succession  for  authority  in  the  Ministry. 
But  all  Christian  Denominations,  excepting  the  Episcopal  Church, 
fail  entirely  in  establishing  the  fact  of  this  Apostolical  Succession, 
and  are  compelled,  in  their  own  case,  ultimately  to  relinquish  the 
claim.  The  Episcopal  Church  makes  out  its  claim  tvithout  the 
shadow  of  reasonahle  doubt,  and  in  the  clearest  manner.  If, 
therefore,  this  Succession  is  necessary,  an  Episcopal  Ministry  is 
equally  necessary,  to  a  proper  administration  of  the  Gospeiy 
The  London  Christian  Observer  was  considered  so  Low  Church, 
that  its  re-publication  in  this  Country  was  recommended  by  "  230 
Ministers,  of  twelve  different  Denominations."  And  yet  that  Peri- 
odical recently  uttered  this  sentiment:  "  If e  believe  Aposlolical  Suc- 
cession to  be  a  Scriptural  Doctrine  ;  we  are  sure  that  Christ  has 
never  failed  to  have  a  Church  upon  Earth  ;  that  he  has  Ordained  a 
Perpetual  Ministry  in  it;  and  that  our  own  Church  is  grounded  upon 
the  foundation  of  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner  stone." 

Mr.  A.  has  insinuated  that  our  Clergy  are  opposed  to  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  exercise  of  Private  Judgment.  In 
this  he  has  done  us  great  injustice.  Do  we  not,  on  every  occasion  of 
Public  Worship,  read   to  our  Congregations   eight  or   ten  Chapters 


92 

(including  the  Psalms  of  David,)  of  Holy  Scripture  ?  Does  this 
look  as  if  we  were  afraid  to  give  the  People  the  Scriptures  ?  Let 
any  one  attend  a  Methodist  Meeting,  and  perhaps  he  will  hear  one 
Chapter  read  on  a  Sunday,  but  no  more  !  Besides,  we  have  Socie- 
ties, responsible  to  the  Church,  for  the  very  purpose  of  circulating 
the  Bible — which  they  are  doing,  too,  quietly,  but  diligently.  We 
prefer  these  Societies — First,  Because  they  are  responsible  to  the 
Church.  Secondly,  Because  they  do  not  expend  an  eighth  of 
THE  Contributions  in  Salaries  to  Agents — they  do  the  work 
gratuitously.  And  while  some  of  us  feel  bound  to  make  all  our  ex- 
ertions in  this  line  of  duty,  in  connection  with  the  Church,  of  course, 
we  have  no  objection  that  persons  of  other  Denominations  should  cir- 
culate the  Blessed  Bible,  ("  without  note  or  comment,'')  in  any  way 
that  they  may  think  proper.  We  would  rather  see  the  Bible  circu- 
lated apart  from  the  Church,  than  not  at  all.  And  as  to  Private 
Judgment,  it  is  only  the  abuse  of  it  that  we  condemn.  If  a  Metho- 
dist set  at  naught  the  rules  of  the  Discipline,  in  the  exercise  of  his 
'*  private  judgment,"  the  Preacher  expels  him.  He  would  call  it  an 
''  UNWARRANTED  degree  of  Private  Judgment,"  although  those  regu- 
lations were  never  dreamed  of  before  the  eighteenth  Century. 

Mr.  A.  has  attacked  another  usage  of  our  Church.  He  says : 
"  Nor  has  the  Papal  Habit  been  laid  aside  to  the  present  day.  We 
say  nothing  against,  because  it  is  a  trifling  matter  ;  but  let  none  deny 
but  that  it  is  purely  Papal."  Let  the  reader  note,  that  that  which  is 
*' PURELY  Papal"  is  a  "trifling  matter,"  in  his  judgment ;  and 
yet  he  is  exceedingly  concerned  for  Protestantism  !  And  was  not 
this  "  Papal  Habit"  worn  by  Fletcher,  Whitfield,  and  Wesley  ?  And 
even  now,  the  engravings  of  Wesley,  in  Methodist  Books,  repre- 
sent him  with  this  "  Papal  Habit"  on  !  But  it  is  very  incorrect  to 
term  it  a  "  Papal  Habit."  What  is  it  that  constitutes  any  usage  or 
Doctrine,  Papal  ?  The  mere  fact  that  it  prevails  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  ?  If  so,  then  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Lutherans,  <fec.,  &:c., 
are  all  Papists — because,  in  common  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  they 
hold  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  Holy  Communion,  and  the 
Doctrines  ef  the  Trinity,  Atonement,  and  others.  Nothing  can  be 
morf  injurious  to  Protestantism,  than  these  indiscrimate  and  ground- 
less applications  of  the  term  "  Papal."  But  thev^  must  soon  cease: 
the  People  are  beginning  to  investigate  for  themselves,  and  wo  to  the 
Pastor  who  has  practised  this  imposition. 

At  least  two  of  the  most  distinguished  Continental  Reformers, 
were  in  favor  of  retaining  these  (  lerical  Garments  in  the  English 
Church.  When  Bucer  was  consulted  with  respect  to  them,  he  re- 
plied :  "  Since  these  Garments  had  been  used  by  the  ^Sncient  Fathers^ 
before  Popery^  and  might  still  be  of  good  use  to  tlie  weak,  when 
well  understood,  *  *  *  he  thought  the  retaining  of  them  expedient.''' 
In  this  opinion,  Peter  Martyr  concurred.  (See  Burnet's  Hist,  of 
Ref.  Part  2,  page  153.)  Here,  these  men  admit  that  they  were  "expe- 
dient," and  that  they  had  been  used  by  the  Ancient  Christians  b  fore 
Popery.     Thus  Mr.  A.  is  contradicted  by  the  very  class  of  Reform- 


93 

ers  for  which  he  has  most  regard.  It  would  be  very  easy  to  adduce 
Testunony  from  the  Ancient  Canons  and  Authors,  that  these  Gar- 
ments were  used  in  the  Primitive  Church,  but  as  it  is  admitted  by 
Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr,  it  cannot  be  necessary.  Let  the  reader 
remember  that  similar  Garments  were  expressly  prescribed  by  the 
Almighty,  in  the  days  of  Moses  (Exodus,  chap.  28)  ;  indeed,  Gar- 
ments incomparably  more  costly  and  splendid  than  those  used  by  us.* 
But  I  have  a  witness  in  their  favor,  of  great  authority  with  the  Me- 
thodists. Dr.  A.  Clarke,  in  his  Comments  on  the  Chapter  just  refer- 
red to,  after  making  some  remarks  upon  the  appropriateness  of  the 
Levitical  vestment,  says  :  "  Should  not  the  Garments  of  those  who 
now  Minister  in  Holy  Things,  be  emblematical  of  the  Things  in  which 
they  Minister  ?  Should  they  not  be  for  glory  and  beauty,  expressive 
of  the  dignity  of  the  Gospel  Ministry — and  that  "  beauty  of  Holi- 
ness" inculculated  thereby  ?  The  white  Surplice  in  the  service  of 
the  Church,  is  almost  the  only  thing  that  remains  of  those  ancient 
and  becoming  Vestments  which  God  recommended  to  be  made  for 
glory  and  for  beauty.  Clothing,  expresive  of  office,  is  of  more  con- 
sequence than  is  generally  imaginecL^''  And  here  I  would  ask — If 
Wesley  and  Clarke  advocated  so  many  things  (as  the  reader  has  seen,) 
which  the  Methodist  Preachers  of  the  present  day  condemn,  ouglit 
not  their  People  to  consider  where  these  variations  from  their  Standards 
and  Fathers,  will  end  ?  T!]e  black  gown  is  worn  by  the  Presbyte- 
rian Preachers  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland.  The  black  gown  is  not  ex- 
clusively Clerical — we  wear  it  in  our  Office  as  Teach krs.  The 
Surplice  (white  dress,)  is  the  emblem  of  our  Priestly  Office,  which 
Dr.  Clarke  so  highly  commended.  The  former  is  worn  by  College 
and  University  Professors,  and  also  by  the  Judges  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court. 

Again  :  Dr.  Jarvis,  who  has  travelled  extensively  in  Europe,  states, 
that  the  Lutherans  of  Europe  "  wear  Surplices  ;  not  merely  the  sim- 
ple Garment  of  white  linen  which  we  use,  but  the  moke  ornamen- 
tal AND  costly  Garment  used  in  the  Church  of  RoME."t     And 


*  In  speaking  of  our  Clerical  Garments,  Mr.  A.  has  been  guilty 
of  some  exaggeration.  He  says  :  "  Exchanging  their  Gorgeous 
Robes  two  or  thri  e  times  during  a  Service."  Robes,  made 
wholly  of  black  silk  and  white  linen,  cannot,  with  propriety,  be 
termed  "  Gorgeous."  This  is  the  difference  between  our  Garments 
and  those  worn  in  the  Church  of  Rome — ours  are  plain  and  simple. 
Again  :  It  is  an  error  to  say,  that  they  are  "  exchanged  two  or 
three  times  during  a  Service."  They  are  never  changed  but 
once,  and  oftentimes  not  at  all.  Alas  !  alas  !  when  Christian  Mini- 
sters will  resort  to  such  means  to  excite  prejudice.  I  would  here 
add,  that  liiis  practice,  in  our  (Church,  is  one  of  custom,  not  of  law. 
Our  Clergy  often  dispense  with  them  in  the  country,  and  in  "  smoky 
private  dwellings." 

t  "  Address,"  p.  21.  The  Doctor  has  mentioned  other  facts  rela- 
ting to  the  usages  of  European  Protestants,  which  show  that  they 


94 

Yet,  tliese  Lutherans  are  the  original  Protestants  !  Dr.  Parker, 
a  Presbyterian  Preacher  of  Philadelphia,  has  recently  published  a 
Sermon  in  opposition  to  the  Church,  in  which,  however,  he  made  the 
following  concessions ;  "  Music,  in  its  most  highly  cultivated  state,  may 
be  made  the  vehicle  ofholy  and  acceptable  praise  to  God.  *  *  *  *  So 
the  black,  Clerical  Robe,  with  its  associations  of  classical  learning 
and  of  a  Sacred  Office  *  *  *  *  hallowed,  as  it  is,  by  the  usage  of 
olden  time,  creates  a  spontaneous  feeling  of  respect  which  may, 
perhaps,  rather  help  than  hinder  the  impressions  of  truth.  As  a 
Church,  we  have  probably  lost  by  laying  aside  the  Organ  and  the 
Robe,  and  being  slow  to  resume  them  on  account  of  2.  prejudice,  con- 
necting them,  in  our  minds,  with  the  showj  trappings  of  the  Papacy." 
And  Dr.  Stiles,  President  of  Yale  College,  and  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished Congregational  Preachers,  some  years  ago  observed,  in  a 
conversation  with  one  of  our  Clergy — "  There  is  one  thing  in  your 
Church,  which  I  wish  was  introduced  into  our  own — I  mean,  the 
Lvhite  Surplice — it  is  so  very  becoming."  1  would  add,  that  similar 
Garments  are  used  in  the  Greek  Church,  and  all  the  Oriental 
Churches.  Surely,  then,  if  they  are  "  purely  Papal,"  there  are  very 
few  Protestants  left. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  must  notice  one  more  charge  which  Mr.  A. 
has  made  against  the  English  Church.  He  represents  it  as  having 
persecuted  Mr.  Wesley.  But  the  persecution  (if  any,)  could  not 
have  amounted  to  much,  as  he  voluntarily  remained  in  it  to  his  death. 
And  if  Wesley  undertook  (as  Mr.  A.  asserts,)  to  establish  an  inde- 
pendent organization  in  this  Country,  every  one  will  admit  that  the 
Church  exercised  extraordinary  forbearance  and  clemency  in  not  ex- 
communicating him.  That  he  was  treated  roughly  by  some  of  the 
members  of  the  Church,  is  very  possible.  But  when  all  the  cir- 
cumstances are  understood,  no  one  can  feel  much  surprise.  Wesley's 
irregularities,  together  with  the  fanaticism  and  extravagant  frenzies 
which  followed  from  his  Preaching,  were  naturally  calculated  to  ex- 
cite against  him  much  indignation  and  opposition.  Wesley  had  the 
same  rights  as  other  Clergymen.  He  could  have  obtained  a  Parish, 
if  he  had  wished.  But  no  :  he  wished  to  roam  at  large,  andPreach 
in  other  Ministers'  Pulpits,  as  he  thought  expedient.     Such  conduct 


resemble  the  Church  of  Rome  much  moie  than  we  do,  notwithstand- 
ino-  the  out-cry  of  '*  Puseyism,"  "  Popery,"  &lc.  He  says  the  Lu- 
therans "  observe  all  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  and  Saints'  Days, 
which  we  do."  "  They  use  the  sign  of  the  Cross,  not  only  in  Bap- 
tism, BUT  IN  Consecrating  the  Elfments  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
They  have  Altars,  with  Lights  burning  upon  them  ;  and  not 
merely  A  Cross,  but  A  Crucifix  in  the  Centre."  '' They  bow 
at  the  name  of  Jesus."  And  Dr.  Jarvis  states,  (hat  the  Calvin ists  of 
Prussia  (among  whom  is  the  celebrated  M.  Merle  d'Aubigne,)  have 
"  cm  Jlltctr  with  a  Cross  upon  it.''"'  Now,  do  not  these  facts  show, 
that  the  charges  of  Popery,  brought  against  us,  are  utterly  unfounded  ? 
Do  they  not  show  that  the  change  is  in  our  accusers,  and  not  in  us  ? 


95 

as  this  would  not  be  allowed  in  any  Denomination,  A-few  extracts 
from  his  Biographer,  Mr.  Southey,  will  set  the  matter  in  its  true 
light':  "  Because  he  Preached  an  enthusiastic  and  dangerous  Doc- 
trine, which  threw  his  hearers  into  convulsions,*  he  was  properly, 
by  most  Clergymen,  refused  the  use  of  their  Pulpits."  (Vol.  2, 
page  330.)  "  But  Wesley  continued,  with  his  constitutional  fervor, 
to  Preach  the  Doctrines  of  Instantaneous  Regeneration,  Assurance, 
and  Sinless  Perfection.  These  Doctrines  gave  iuist  offence,  and  be- 
came still  more  offensive  when  promulgated  by  ^Unlettered  men,  with 
all  the  vehemence  and  self-siffficiency  of fancie/d  Inspiration  J '^  "  He 
related  cures  wrought  by  his  Faith  and  Prayers^  which  he  conside- 
red and  represented  zs  positively  Miramlous.''^  (Vol.  2,  page  19.) 
"  This  Faith  was  so  strong,  that  it  sufficed,  sometimes,  to  cure  not 
only  himself,  but  his  horse  a/so."  (lb.  page  20.)  "  His  notions  of 
Diabolical  Agency  went  further  than  this  :  he  imputed  to  it  many  of 
the  accidents  and  discomforts  of  life — disease,  bodily  hurts,  storms., 
and  earthquakes,  and  nightmare  :  he  believed  that  Epilepsy  was 
often,  or  always,  the  effect  of  Possession,  and  that  most  madmeii 
were  demoniacs.  A  belief  in  Witchcraft  naturally  followed  from 
these  premises."  (lb.  page  137.)  One  of  Mr.  Wesley's  Lay- 
Preachers,  (George  Bell)  "  attempted  to  restore  a  blind  man  to  sight 
— touched  his  eyes  with  spittle,  and  pronounced  the  word  Ephptia- 
tha''\'  (lb.  page  247.)  Of  course,  he  failed.  Mr.  Southey  says 
that  Wesley  "  published,  as  plainly  Miraculous,  an  account  of  an 
instantaneous  cure  wrought  by  this  man"  !  !  (Page  246.)  Wesley 
afterwards  expelled  this  man,  as  he  turned  Prophet,  and  like  Miller, 
predicted  the  end  of  the  world  as  at  hand  !  (Pp.  249,  250.)  Sou- 
they adds  :  "  This  ignorant  enthusiast  became  an  ignorant  Infidel"  ! 
Again  :  Southey  speaking  of  the  effects  of  Methodism  upon 
society,  says  it  "  substituted  a  Sectarian,  in  the  pl'ce  of  a  Catholic 
Spirit;  and  by  alienating  them  from  the  National  Church,  weakened 
the  strono^est  cement  of  social  order,  and  loosened  the  ties  whereby 


'&^ 


^  Southey  says,  that  in  consequence  of  the  example  of  Wesley  in 
employing  Lay-Preachers,  a  number  of  roving  adventurers  in  all  the 
intermediate  grades  between  knavery  and  madness,  took  to  Preaching, 
and  brought  opprobrium  upon  Religion  itself.  *'  One  Magistrate  in 
the  County  ol  Middlesex,  licensed  fourteen  hundred  Preachers  in 
the  course  of  five  years.  Of  six-and-thirty  persons  who  obtained 
licenses  at  one  Sessions,  six  spelled  "  Ministers  of  the  Gospel''  in 
six  different  ways,  and  seven  signed  their  mark  !  One  fellow,  who 
applied  for  a  license,  being  asked  if  he  could  read,  replied  :  '  Mother 
reads,  and  I  'spounds  and  'splains'  "       (lb.  page  388  :  note.) 

t  One  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  which  has  recently  seceded  from 
the  old  body  of  Methodists — the  Rev.  Le  Roy  Sunderland — states, 
that  after  considerable  inquiry  into  Animal  Magnetism,  he  has  disco- 
vered that  the  "  effects  so  much  rejoiced  in  by  the  Methodists,  as  be- 
ing produced  by  Religious  affections,  are  really  nothing  more  than 
Mesmeric  influences"  ! 


96 

men  are  bound  to  their  native   land.     It   carried  disunion  and 

DISCORD  into  PRIVATE  LIFE,  BREAKING  UP  FAMILIES  and  FRIENDSHIPS." 

(lb.  377.)  It  would  be  easy  to  add  many  more  such  extracts— but 
I  forbear.  Let  the  reader  connect  with  them,  Wesley's  own  account 
of  the  EvilFruits  of  Methodism,  (See  page  36,)  and  he  will  not 
wonder  that  many  of  the  Pulpits  were  closed  agninst  him — and  he 
will  not  wonder  that  some  individuals,  or  even  Clergymen,  in  their 
opposition  to  him,  were  carried  beyond  the  bonds  of  propriety.  The 
reader  must  not  however  understand  these  passages  as  applying  to 
the  Methodists  of  the  present  day.  Wesley,  towards  the  close  of 
his  life,  learned  wisdom  from  experience,  and  discountenanced  and 
restrained  many  extravagancies  which  he  had  previously  encouraged. 
I  beg  the  reader  to  understand  that  these  facts  are  published  to  vind- 
cate  the  Church,  and  not  to  reflect  upon  the  memory  of  Wesley. 
There  is  much  in  his  character,  in  spite  of  some  mistakes,  v^orthy  of 
admiration  and  imitation.  His  virtues  as  well  as  his  faults  are 
faithfully  recorded  by  Southey — who  endeavors  apparently  to  ex- 
hibit an  impartial  picture  of  both  Wesley  and  Methodism. 

But  I  must  now  bring  my  observations  to  a  close.  I  regret  that 
my  limits  have  not  allowed  me  to  treat  as  fully  upon  some  points — 
especially  the  grand  point — Episcopal  or  Apostolical  Succession — as 
i  desired.  But  at  the  same  time,  enough  has  been  said,  I  hope,  to 
satisfy  the  candid  and  reflecting  mind,  with  regard  to  the  Episcopal 
Succession  ;  let  the  reader  combine  together  all  the  facts  which  have 
been  mentioned,  and  seriously  reflect  upon  them,  and  I  think  he 
cannot  refuse  assent  without  violating  every  principle  of  historical 
evidence. 

One  thing  is  certain — the  Churchman  is  on  the  safe  side.  If  no 
Apostolical  Commission  be  necessary — we  are,  of  course,  as  safe  as 
others  ;  but  if  it  be  then  their  condition,  is  truely  lamentable — no 
Ministry — no  Sacraments,  no  Church.  Is  a  Christian  justifiable  in 
running  such  a  risk?  Should  not  even  the  slightest  probahlity 
sway  him  in  a  matter  of  such  moment?  There  is  scarcely  any  sin 
more  severely  censured  in  Scripture  than  schism.  And  even  the 
possibility  of  being  guilty  of  it,  should  determine  the  serious  mind. 
The  Primitive  Christians  regarded  it  as  a  most  heinous  offence. 
Hear  what  St.  Ignatius  (a  contempoary  of  the  Apostles)  says  re- 
specting it:  "  Be  not  deceived,  brethren  ;  if  any  one  follows  him  that 
makes  a  schism  in  the  Church,  he  shall  not  inherit  the  Kingdom  of 
God."  (Epist.  Philad.) 

St.  Irenaeus,  says  :  "  Those  who  tear  and  divide  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  receive  from  God  the  same  punishment  as  .feroboam." 
(Lib.  iii.  c.  62.)  St.  Cyprian  says  :  "  Whosoever  separates  himself 
from  the  Church,  declares  himself  an  alien,  and  cuts  himself  off 
from  the  inheritance  which  the  Church  promises. '  *'  He  cannot 
have  God  for  his  Father  who  has  not  the  Church  for  his  Mother." 
(De  Unit.  Eccles.)  This  is  strong  language,  but  not  stronger  than 
we  find  in  Scripture  ;  observe  the  earnestness  of  St.  Paul  upon  this 
point :    *'  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them   which   cause 


97 

divisions  and  offences,  contrary  to  the  Doctrine  which  ye  have  learned 
and  avoid  them.  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  their  own  belly :  and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches 
deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple."  (Romans  16:  17,  18.)  And 
St.  Jude,  says  :  "  These  be  they  who  separate  themselves,  sensual, 
having  not  the  Spirit."  Are  not  "  Divisions"  continually  occuring? 
If  so — these  passages  must  apply  somewhere.  Let  no  one  be  in- 
duced to  think  otherwise,  from  the  circumstance  that  many  good 
People  are  involved  in  them.  For  good  People  are  often  found  in 
Sects  which  are  not  only  Schismatical,  but  also  Heretical.  It  is  with 
Schism  as  with  other  sins — persons  of  genuine  piety  are  led  into  it 
-unconsciously.  And  while  a  Merciful  God  may  Pardon  the  of- 
fence, he  cannot  but  look  upon  it  with  displeasure— and  it  cannot 
but  prove  injurious  in  some  way  or  other,  both  to  him,*  who  com 

*  Some  of  the  most  distinguished  Dissenters  who  were  instru- 
mental in  causing  divisions,  "  sorely  lamented'*  it  later  in  life. 

"Cartwright. — Cartwright's  last  words  on  his  death-bed  were, 
that  he  sorely  lamented  the  unnecessary  troubles  he  had  caused  in 
the  Church,  by  the  schism  he  had  been  the  great  fomenter  of,  and 
wished  he  was  to  begin  his  life  again,  that  he  might  testify  to  the 
world  that  dislike  he  had  of  his  former  way."  (Sir  H.  Yelverton^s 
Preface  to  Morton^ s  Episcopacy.) 

"Baxter. — I  am  much  more  sensible  of  the  evil  of  schism,  and 
of  the  separate  humour,  and  of  gathering  parties,  and  making  Sects 
in  the  Church,  than  I  was  heretofore,  for  the  effects  have  shown  us 
more  of  the  mischiefs."  [Baxters  Life,  SfC.) 

Most  of  those  who  cause  and  encourage  divisions,  are  very  fear- 
ful of  the  increase  of  Popery.  Let  them  mark  what  Baxter  says 
respecting  it.  "  Our  divisions  gratify  the  Papists,  and  greatly  hazard 
the  Protestant  Religion,  and  that  more  than  most  of  you  seem  to 
believe  or  to  regard. 

"  Popery  will  grow  out  of  our  divisions,  by  the  odium,  and  scorn  of 
our  disagreements,  inconsistencies,  and  multiplied  Sects  :  thev  will 
persuade  people  that  we  must  come  for  unity  to  them,  or  else  run 
mad  and  crumble  into  the  dust  and  individuals.  Thousands  have 
been  drawn  to  Popery,  or  confirmed  in  it,  by  this  argument  already  ; 
and  I  am  persuaded  that  all  the  arguments  else  in  Bellarmine,  and  all 
other  books  that  ever  were  written,  have  not  done  so  much  to  make 
Papists  in  England,  as  tae  multitude  of  Sects  among  themselves. 
Yea,  some  Professors  of  Religious  strictness,  of  great  esteem  for 
Godliness,  have  turned  Papists  themselves,  when  they  were  giddy 
and  wearied  with  turnings,  and  when  they  had  run  from  sect  to  sect, 
and  found  no  consistency  in  any. 

"It  shameth  us,  it  grieveth,u6  to  see  and  hear  from  England,  and 
from  New  England,  this  common  cry.  We  are  endangered  by 
divisions,  principally  because  the  self-conceited  part  of  Religious 
People  will  not  be  ruled  by  their  Pastors,  but  must  have  their  way, 
aud  will  needs  be  rulers  of  the  Church  and  of  them. 

**  You  have  made  more  Papists,  than  ever  we  are  like  to  recover." 


98 

mits  it,  and  to  the  cause  of  Religion.  History  proves  nothing 
clearer,  than  this,  that  Schism  ultimately  leads  to  Heresy.  A  long 
period  is  sometimes  required  for  the  developement  of  this  conse- 
quence— but  sooner  or  later  it  is  inevitable.  And  hence  vi^e  are  apt 
to  overrate  the  good  resulting  from  any  particular  Sect  of  modern 
origin  — Methodism  for  instance.  It  is  too  young  yet,  to  form  a 
correct  estimate  of  its  fruits.  It  has  already  given  birth  to  an  im- 
mense number  of  divisions  in  this  country  and  in  England.  And 
before  another  half-century  shall  roll  away — most  of  them  may  fall 
into  the  most  destructive  Heresy.  I  pray  that  they  may  not?  But 
what  safe-guard  have  they  which  other  Sects  had  not.  They  hav& 
discarded  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  the  Episcopal 
Succession,  and  the  Liturgy— which  have  been  considered,  in  every 
Age,  (and  still  are  by  six-sevenths  of  Christendom)  necessary  to  the 
PRESERVATION  of  the  "Faith  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the 
Saints."  Those  Religious  Communities  of  Europe  founded  by 
Luther  and  Calvin,  are  now  overrun  with  Neology — an  Arian  and 
Infidel  system,  under  the  garb  of  Christianity.  Samuel  Laing,  Esq., 
a  Scottish  Presbyterian,  says  :  that  "  Geneva,  the  seat  and  centre 
of  Calvinism,  the  fountain-head  from  which  the  pure  and  living 
waters  of  our  Scottish  Zion  flow,  the  earthly  source,  the  pattern, 
the  Rome  of  our  Presbyterian  Doctrine  and  Practice,  has  fallen 
lower  from  her  own  Original  Doctrine  and  Practice  than  ever  Rome 
fell.  Rome  has  still  superstition  ;  Geneva  has  not  even  that  sem- 
blance of  Religion.  In  the  head  Church  of  the  original  seat  of 
Calvinism,  in  a  city  of  five  and  twenty  thousand  souls,  at  the  only 
service  on  the  Sabbath  day — there  being  no  evening  service — I  sat 
down  in  a  Congregation  of  about  two  hundred  females,  and  three 
and  twenty  males,  mostly  men  of  a  former  generation,  with  scarcely 
a  youth,  or  boy  or  working  man  among  them.  In  the  afternoon,  the 
only  service  in  towns  or  in  the  country,  is  reading  a  chapter  of  the 
Bible  to  the  children,  and  hearing  them  gabble  over  the  Catechism  in 
a  way  which  shows  they  have  not  a  glimpse  of  the  meaning.  A 
pleasure  tour  in  the  steam-boats,  which  are  regularly  advertised  for  a 
Sunday  promenade  round  the  lake,  a  pic  nic  dinner  in  the  country, 
and  overflowing  Congregations  in  the  evening  at  the  Theatre,  the 
Equestrian  Circus,  the  Concert  Saloons,  Ball  Rooms,  and  Coffee 
Houses,  are  all  that  distinguish  Sunday  from  Monday  in  that  city,  in 
which,  three  centuries  before,  Calvin  moved  the  Senate  and  the 
People  to  commit  to  the  flames  his  own  early  friend  Servetus,  the 
discover  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  (?)  and  one  of  the  first 
Philosophers  of  that  Age,  for  presuming  to  differ  in  opinion  and 
strength  of  argument  from  his  own  Reliorious  dogma.  This  is  action 
and  re-action  in  Religious  Spirit  with  a  vengeance.  In  the  village 
Churches,  along  the  Protestant  side  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva — spots 
upon  this  earth  specially  intended,  the  traveller  would  say,  to  elevate 
the  mind  of  man  to  his  Creator  by  the  glories  of  the  surrounding 
scenery — the  rattling  of  the  billiard  balls,  the  rumbling  of  the  skittle 
trough,  the  shout,  the  laugh,  the  distant  shots  of  the  rifle  gun  clubs, 


99 

are  heard  above  the  Psalm,  the  Sermon,  and  the  barren  Forms  of 
State-Prescribed  Prayer,  during  the  one  brief  service  on  Sundays, 
delivered  to  very  scanty  Congregations,  in  fact  to  a  few  females  and 
a  dozen  or  tvi'O  old  men,  in  very  populous  Parishes  supplied  with 
able  and  zealous  Ministers." 

He  also  states  that  "  in  no  country  in  Europe,  Protestant  or 
Catholic,  is  the  Church  attendance  worse,  the  regard  for  the  ordinary 
observance  of  Religious  worship  less,  the  Religious  Indifference — not 
entitled  to  be  called  Infidelity,  not  so  respectable  as  Infidelity,  because 
not  arising  from  any  reasoning  or  thinking,  wrong  or  right,  about 
Religion — greater  than  in  Protestant  Switzerland,  in  the  district  of 
our  Calvinistie  Mother- Church  in  and  about  Geneva."  (Laing's  Notes 
of  a  Traveller.) 

The  same  consequences  have  followed  the  abandonment  of  Episco- 
pacy in  England  and  in  this  Country.  Mr.  Wilberforce  mentions  in  hi« 
Diary,  that  a  Mr.  Hughes,  a  Dissenting  Preacher,  stated  in  his  pre- 
sence that  there  was  '''not  one  in  twenty  of  Doddrige's  Pupils 
hut  who  turned  either  Socinian^  or  tending  that  way ;  and 
that  all  the  Old  Presbyterian  places  of  worship  were  become 
Socinian  Congregations''  (Life  of  Wilberforce  by  his  Sons, 
vol.  3,  page  24.)  Let  the  reader  remember  that  Doddrige  was  a 
sincere  and  Orthodox  Christian,  but  a  Dissenter.*  A  Dissent- 
ing Publication  states,  that  "  out  of  258  Presbyterian  Congrega- 
tions in  England^  235  loere^  in  the  year  1832,  Unitarians'' !  And 
now  let  us  turn  to  our  own  Country.  Where  do  Universalism,  and 
Unitarianism,  most  abound  ?  In  the  land  of  the  Puritans  !  A  New 
England  Periodical— the  Witness  and  Advocate,  makes  the  follow- 
ing statement :  "  The  first  Puritanical  Church  founded  on  the  shores 
of  New  England  is  now  Socinian.  The  same  is  true  of  a  great 
multitude,  founded  by  men  who  loved  the  truth,  and  were  ready  to 
die  its  in  defence.  And  where  now  is  that  Institution  of  Learning 
which  was  reared  by  those  who  would  have  mourned  and  wept  atthe 
thought  of  its  present  condition  ?  The  former  home  of  Puritanism 
is  now  the  fountain-head  of  Unitarianism,  An  article  in  the 
*'  Presbyterian,"  (Feb.  12,  1842,)  states,  that  there  were  form- 
erly, in  the  State  of  Maine,  ten  Presbyterian  Churches,  but 
now  none!     It  further  states,  (which  is  well  known)  that  in  other 


*  The  effect  of  "Divisions"  upon  Missionary  operations,  is  truly 
disastrous.  Certain  Methodist  Missionaries  in  India,  after  having 
iong  labored  with  little  or  no  success,  determined  to  renounce  Dissent, 
and  enter  the  Church.  Accordingly,  they  made  application  to  the 
Bishop  of  Madras.  '*  The  Heathens  tell  us,"  said  they, ''  we  would 
like  your  Religion  very  weW.if  there  ivere  not  so  many  sorts  of  it:' 
Accordinj?-  to  some  statements  in  the  "  London  Watchman,"  (Metho- 
<list)  many  Missionaries  from  various  Sects  in  England  and  America, 
have  been  laboring  for  years  in  India,  but  scarcely  anything  has  been 
done,  except  by  the  Church.  Two  or  three  of  these  Missionaries 
have  labored  seven  years,  and  made  only  three  converts  J 


100 

parts  of  New  England,  many  Presbyterian  Churches  have  become 
Congregational.  Let  this  be  connected  with  the  fact  that  many  of 
the  Congregational  Churches  have  become  Unitarians  and  Universal- 
ists,  and  we  have  here  the  same  melancholy  result  as  in  Europe. 
Now  let  the  reader  observe  the  contrast.  Although  Episcopacy  i» 
held  by  six-sevenths  of  Christendom,  there  is  not  a  single  genuine 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  whole  World,  that  denies  the  Deity  of  our 
Blessed  Lord.  Can  the  Orthodox  Christian  demand  a  better  proof 
than  this,  of  the  truth  and  utility  of  the  Episcopal  Succession  ?  Can 
the  Orthodox  Christian,  who  contemplates  these  facts,  wonder  that 
Churchmen  adhere  to  this  point  with  so  much  tenacity  ?  These 
facts  (if  nothing  else,)  clearly  show,  that  in  contending  for  the  Epis- 
copal Succession,  we  are  contending,  as  St.  Jude  enjoins,  "  for  the 
Faith  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the  Saints." 

"  Almighty  God  !  who  hast  built  Thy  Church  upon  the  Founda- 
tion of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
Chief  Corner  Stone  :  grant  that  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
all  Christians  may  be  so  joined  together  in  Unity  of  Spirit,  and  in 
the  Bonds  of  Peace,  that  they  may  be  an  Holy  Temple,  acceptable 
unto  Thee."  [Prayer  Book. 

THE     END. 


m 


;aS;SSft'a,A8i. 


Wm^mP' 


i^m 


il?':m^i^^m^-^^ 


W 


'4 

A 

Ai.^^.S  , 

?M 

|m 

m 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  01021   7083 


!:s^>: 


iM;5x>::^8i^ 


833- 


'^^'-:^m^ 


°»siai- 


»^:>"»^!S> 


JfS^'^t 


■"^m^ 


